Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 17 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Minister was asked—

Pig Industry

Miss Anne McIntosh: What discussions he has had with the European Commission on approval for state aid to restructure the UK pig industry. [107878]

Mr. David Tredinnick: What recent discussions he has had with the European Commission concerning aid for UK pig farmers. [107882]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): My officials and I have held several discussions with the European Commission on the difficulties faced by UK pig producers. The most recent discussions were on Monday 24 January and on Tuesday 1 February.

Miss McIntosh: I have come without my chocolate eclair—I shall save it for other purposes. Will the Minister confirm that he has spoken to the Commission, following the Prime Minister's undertaking to the National Farmer Union last week? The Prime Minister said:
I do not rule out further measures to help. But it must be linked to a strategy that provides a long-term framework.
I have received correspondence from the Commission that shows that the Commissioner is waiting to hear from the Minister that the type of aid—[HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] I am prepared to put correspondence in the Library to show hon. Members that the Commissioner is on standby, waiting to help.
Pig farmers have had to replace all their units to comply with the sow stall and tether ban. They have also had to pay more than £80 million a year—more than £5 a week a pig—on a BSE equivalent tax. The Government are allowed to apply for state aids. Will the Minister confirm to the House that he has done so?

Mr. Brown: I am afraid that the hon. Lady completely misunderstands the position. Discussions with the Commission on the difficulties in the pig sector have been continuing for some time. I have been trying to find a way through for the sector, in order to keep it operating. Any room for manoeuvre that the Commission may have—although that has not yet been settled—will be in restructuring. That is rather different.
The burdens that I am asked to lift are to do with offal disposal—to put some extra money into the industry as an operating aid. As we have often pointed out, the big difficulty with that is that it would be viewed by the Commission—certainly by other member states—as an economic aid to the industry. If we had intended to provide such assistance because of BSE, which underpins the restrictions in the UK, we should have done so in 1996.

Mr. Tredinnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, a year ago, there were 470 pig farmers in the east midlands and that 70 of them have ceased trading? Is he further aware that what really angers the pig farmers is that the Belgian Government were able to obtain compensation for controls against dioxin in animal feed, but our farmers are suffering, in effect, a BSE tax? Does he not think that it behoves his Government to consider how the Belgian Government received money, while he has been unable to do so?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes the same error as the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). He is confusing two separate issues. Aid for restructuring the industry—as was given to Belgium—means taking out capacity and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No Minister has ever underplayed the difficulties in the sector. We have been trying to find constructive ways to get the sector through the difficulties. In effect, the hon. Gentleman is arguing for aid to close it; that has never been our objective.
The key issue, as I told the hon. Member for Vale of York, is the cost of offal disposal. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have twice been back to the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to try to find a way of getting back the commercial value for offal that existed before the restrictions were enforced. I have twice been turned down by SEAC. The Government have to act on professional advice in this matter.
The other issue is whether we can find a form of operating aid that would be acceptable to the EU. We have been trying to make progress with the Commission on that proposition—but not successfully.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Are we being hampered, in our requests for state aids and in my right hon. Friend's negotiations, by the fact that, over 18 years of Conservative Government, the Conservatives argued repeatedly in the Commission against any form of state aid to any form of agriculture in western Europe?


They repeatedly adopted that position, and now they have done a complete somersault and placed us in a very invidious position.

Mr. Brown: I think that we would have been on much stronger ground if we had agreed to pay some form of state aid to the pig sector when the original restrictions came in, because of BSE, in 1996. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), the Opposition spokesman, has confirmed to the House that such aids were not paid then because it was believed in 1996 that the industry could bear it. Having said that, he is effectively saying that any payment now would be an economic intervention—which is precisely what the Commission says back to us, when not allowing us to make any such payment.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Who took us into this lousy Common Market? In October 1971, the Tories took us into the Common Market. When we had a referendum in 1975, I went round Bolsover and many other areas, asking the farmers to support us to get out of it. What happened? Sadly, the farmers had been kidded on by the newspapers supporting the Tory party and all the rest, which were saying, "There will be money for you in the Common Market." The pig farmers, those dealing with cows and all the rest of them would not listen to people like us, and the net result is that they have got it round the neck.
I am fed up to the back teeth of listening to these Johnnys-come-lately who voted for the Common Market, for the Maastricht treaty and for the Single European Act and got us into this almighty mess, and who are now standing on their political heads.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right to chide the parliamentary Opposition for their views on Europe. It is true—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I said, "For their views on Europe." Hon. Members should listen carefully before going "Oh!" It is true to say that the common agricultural policy, as structured, does not work well for British farmers. That is why the Government strive for reform and have made more progress on it than anyone else ever did.

Mr. Colin Breed: What discussions has the Minister had with the Treasury in respect of funds that may be made available for state aid to the pig industry? Is there any underspend in his budget in respect of BSE-related expenditure?

Mr. Brown: There is no underspend in my budget that I could use to provide an emergency aid package for the pig sector. Extra support for the pig sector would mean a call on sums of money that are not contained within my Department's budget. Discussions of moneys that are to be spent on supporting agriculture continue with the Treasury, but the sum of money that can be spent is finite and I certainly have nothing new to announce to the House today.

Mr. Mark Todd: In a conversation earlier this week, Mr. Fischler made it absolutely clear to me and some of my colleagues that there was no prospect of state aid related directly to the £5.26 additional BSE burden, and that the only prospect lay with short-term assistance focused on capacity reduction for restructuring.
Is that the Minister's understanding, and would that therefore suggest that we must look carefully at a package of that kind and also at lifting the restrictions imposed by SEAC?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has accurately explained the position, although I do not draw quite the same conclusions. I have been trying very hard not to close the door on any avenue that might work. I have repeatedly told the House that getting state aid clearance from the Commission on providing assistance on the offal disposal measure was always going to be incredibly difficult; but I have been trying hard not to close the door on that.

Mr. Michael Jack: As we stand in the House at the moment, there are pig farmers outside fighting for the very future of their industry. They deserve our support. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) has retailed only part of the conversation, which I also heard, with Commissioner Fischler this week. In that conversation, he made it absolutely clear that he was awaiting proposals from the United Kingdom Government, perhaps of an innovative nature, dealing with restructuring and measures to improve the efficiency of the industry, but none had been received by Tuesday of this week. For the sake of those pig farmers in Parliament square, will the Minister tell us when he will come up with a proposal to help save their industry?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman obviously was not paying attention to the earlier exchanges. We have been exploring how best to use the limited sums of public money available to help the industry get through. What he is now advocating—I should be interested to hear whether it is the official position of the Conservative party—is a package to restructure permanently, by which he means downsize, the industry. That is something quite different.

Ms Sally Keeble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the problems in the pig industry resulted from the collapse of a particular market that the British pig industry used to have? Can he confirm that, when he does put forward proposals to the European Commission, they will be about the long-term sustainability of the pig industry and will not result in the problems that we have seen in other sectors of the agriculture industry, where short-term gain and proppings-up have made the industry dependent on subsidies from Europe in a way that is not in the long-term interests of the industry as a whole, or of individual farmers?

Mr. Brown: The support that the industry can receive from the European Union is export refunds and aids to private store. I have asked the Commission to make use of those instruments, but, because of the broader European scene, it has declined to do so. However, we have made that request.
As I have said repeatedly, the public moneys that are available for that purpose are limited and I would rather use what public moneys are available to get the industry through and closer to the marketplace. That is why I announced at the NFU conference the use of the extra moneys behind the meat livestock promotion campaign and other pig industry-related marketing initiatives.
That is the way to get the industry through its problems. I am not persuaded by those who say that we should try to get some public moneys to close the industry. That now seems to be the view of the Opposition.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Last July, the Minister promised that he would write to all public sector purchasers, but he did nothing for four months. Before Christmas, he promised to end the scandal of fraudulent labelling that allows foreign pigmeat to be described as British, but he refuses to support the honesty in labelling Bill. Last week, the Prime Minister promised help for pig farmers, but the Commission has confirmed that no request has even been made by the British Government for such help. Meanwhile, pig farmers are restructuring themselves by going out of business. Is the Minister too busy writing scripts for "The Archers" to realise that his failure to act and his weakness are driving hundreds of pig farmers out of business every month and forcing British consumers to eat more pigmeat that has been produced under inferior animal welfare conditions?

Mr. Brown: This is pretty poor stuff. We have heard about the letters to support the industry. They are part of a Meat and Livestock Commission campaign that has been co-ordinated with it. There has been no unreasonable delay in my Ministry sending the letters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Let me try this again, although you will be familiar with the argument, Madam Speaker, having had to listen to it on at least three previous occasions. The letters were part of a co-ordinated campaign with the Meat and Livestock Commission. I had hoped that it would be a campaign that would unite Parliament and that everyone would get behind our domestic producers. However, all the Opposition seem able to do is to snipe, to make jokes and to say that things should have been done differently or should have been done more speedily. What they do not do is come up with constructive suggestions of their own. I notice that the hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the Opposition, did not confirm whether it was now the Opposition's policy that Her Majesty's Government should approach the Commission with a scheme to downsize the industry. Is that the hon. Gentleman's policy, or is it not?

Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best aid that the pig industry could receive would be to have a proper system of labelling? At the present, one rifles through a supermarket's bacon counter where one sees "Wiltshire cured" written in extremely large letters on the packets. However, in tiny letters underneath, it is made clear that the bacon has nothing to do with the British pig industry. I hope that my right hon. Friend will view as a matter of urgency the need for real changes, so that those of us who support the better welfare system that British pigs have are given every opportunity to exercise our consumer choice without the difficulties that we encounter.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have issued tough new guidance—because that is within my competence—to trading standards officers. I hope that they will make use of it through the courts to ensure that labelling on the origins of livestock products is not misleading. That is particularly important in the pork sector.
The legislation introduced through the private Member's route is clearly designed to skirmish with the European Union, whose competence labelling is, rather than to solve any problem that is faced in the United Kingdom.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the progress of the trials investigating the control and spread of bovine TB. [107879]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Six triplets have been enrolled in the badger culling trial and initial proactive culling has been carried out in three of them. We aim to announce the remaining trial areas in the course of this year.

Mr. Winterton: Although bovine TB is a highly complex scientific issue, does the Minister agree that it is also an urgent economic issue for farmers, particularly the dairy farmers in my constituency of Macclesfield, in Congleton, in Eddisbury and in other constituencies elsewhere in the country? Although there is a need for scientific investigation, does he agree that that should not be used as an excuse for Government inaction? What steps are the Government now taking urgently to control the spread of bovine TB?

Mr. Morley: We regard bovine TB as one of the most serious issues that MAFF faces. We have committed significant resources to the Krebs experiment, but it would be undermined if we took action outside the trial areas. However, we are concerned about the spread of TB. We have set up the TB forum, which has the freedom to consider the situation outside the experiment areas, and we shall listen to its advice carefully.

Mr. David Drew: I am sure that we shall debate the matter at greater length in Westminster Hall this afternoon. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a need to consider help with consequential loss, particularly when herds that have been closed can be re-closed because of the increased incidence of bovine TB? We must consider in particular the discrimination against those farmers who seek to reduce their cost base by increasing collaboration and by sharing milking. They are the very people who are most adversely affected by that awful disease.

Mr. Morley: I understand my hon. Friend's point. As he knows, we have increased compensation to farmers by 200 per cent., to reflect the problems that they face because of TB. We are not in a position to make extra compensation for consequential losses, but we will keep the situation under review.

Sir Michael Spicer: Is the Minister aware that the delays, uncertainty and secrecy surrounding the studies of badgers and TB are causing great consternation throughout Worcestershire, which is one of the areas in which the trials are meant to be taking place?

Mr. Morley: There have been delays and problems with recruitment, the weather and interference. Some of


those problems were predicted and we were not surprised by them. The independent scientific group still believes that the experiment is on course and that we can deal with the problems, and we are tackling them.

Flood Defences

Mr. Steve McCabe: What progress has been made in implementing the Bye report on flood defence; and if he will make a statement. [107880]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): A good deal of progress has been made towards the Government's priority of a seamless and integrated service of flood forecasting, warning and response.

Mr. McCabe: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, with climate change becoming more and more of a reality, the need for effective flood defences, particularly in low-lying areas, cannot be overstated? Is he satisfied that the Environment Agency is on target to complete its action plan for flood defences?

Mr. Morley: I am glad to say that the Environment Agency is meeting the target that we set for the action plan that we put in place following the Northampton floods. We are certainly facing rising sea levels, and we are building in projections to our sea defence strategy and making more resources available, but of course we cannot prevent all floods. We can improve warnings and try to minimise risk. I hope that the House will join me in paying tribute to all the staff from the Environment Agency, local authorities and the emergency services who worked so hard over the holiday period to shore up defences.

Mr. Tim Boswell: We echo those sentiments about work done by the Environment Agency. What consultations has the Minister had with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the implications of its strictures on building on flood plains for the overall capacity of counties, such as Northamptonshire, in or near the south-east to absorb the houses that DETR wishes on them as part of its proposals? Does he not realise that it will be impossible both to make land available for housing and to safeguard the same land because of its enhanced apparent flood risk?

Mr. Morley: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. We are in consultation with DETR. The Bye report referred to problems of flood plain development and the fact that, in the past, advice from the former National Rivers Authority was not taken into account. The issue is important, and I know that my colleagues in DETR will take it into account in future planning guidance.

Mr. Tony Clarke: Will my hon. Friend comment further on progress being made by the Environment Agency in respect of advice given to planning authorities? I thank my hon. Friend and his staff for the professional and sensitive manner in which they dealt with the queries of my constituents. Often, advice

given by the Environment Agency to a local authority is at best non-committal, and sometimes unhelpful and over-cautious. Finally, may I welcome the appointment of Sir John Harman? Having had a run-in with his predecessor, I hope to have a much better relationship with him.

Mr. Morley: I know that my hon. Friend has been deeply involved in these matters, following the tragedy that occurred in Northampton. I am sure that he will be pleased to see all the lessons learned from that being applied. One result is that the Environment Agency has now produced flood risk plans, which are being sent to all local authorities in the country so that they know the areas at risk. That will assist planning policy for the future.

Northern Ireland (BSE)

William Thompson: What progress is being made in discussions with the European Commission to categorise Northern Ireland as a low BSE incidence area; and if he will make a statement. [107881]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The matter is under discussion between the UK Agriculture Departments. The Northern Ireland Minister, Brid Rogers, made out a strong case when we met recently. I find the Northern Ireland case persuasive and want to help to take it forward constructively.

Mr. Thompson: I thank the Minister for his positive reply. I am sure that he appreciates the efforts that have been made by the new Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland to further the case. It is a strong case, and I urge the Minister to redouble his efforts to bring it to a happy fruition, because of its importance to the farming industry in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Brown: I want to work constructively with the responsible authorities in Northern Ireland to take the issue forward in a constructive way. The case is a good one. Other countries that have been accepted as low risk, such as the Republic of Ireland, have a higher incidence of the disease than Northern Ireland. The House may be interested to know that, in 1999, there were some eight cases of BSE per million head of adult cattle in Northern Ireland. That compares with about 25 in Ireland, 50 in Switzerland, 230 in Portugal and 365 in Great Britain.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I was pleased with my right hon. Friend's response. I support the position adopted by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) who, on this matter, is supporting a united Ireland approach and obviously believes in equality for farmers throughout the island of Ireland. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Ulster Farmers Union has stated:
On science and on fact we qualify as a low incidence region.
There were, I believe, only six cases of BSE in Northern Ireland in 1999.

Mr. Brown: The figure that I have is between seven and eight, but we will not quarrel—the point is clear. We have not yet succeeded, but the case is a good one, founded in fact, and I want to take it forward.

Mr. Tim Yeo: If the Minister is too weak to stand up for Northern Ireland, will he tell us— [Interruption.] Yes, he is engulfed in bureaucratic excuses for not doing what the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) asked. Will the Minister tell the House what action he is taking to protect British consumers against the dangers of eating French beef, following this week's report which exposed the scandalously defective procedures in France, where large numbers of potential BSE cases are being slaughtered without proper inspection or even proper recording, and from which meat is being sold for human consumption?

Mr. Brown: I see now why the hon. Gentleman was not moved in his party's last reshuffle—certainly not to Northern Ireland. These issues are not easy. The proper approach is to work constructively with those who understand them and to find a constructive way forward. We do exactly the same on food safety issues—

Mr. John Bercow: Supine.

Mr. Brown: I do not think that the public who are being protected by the measure that we have in place would regard the Government's attitude as supine. Such remarks come ill from members of the Conservative party, which presided over the BSE crisis in this country. We act on professional advice on the safety of food and of imported food, and we will continue to do so.

Food Standards Agency

Helen Jones: When he will establish the Food Standards Agency; and if he will make a statement. [107883]

Mr. Tony Colman: When he will establish the Food Standards Agency; and if he will make a statement. [107889]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): We successfully completed the legislation to establish the Food Standards Agency in November last year. We are on course for the agency to begin work in the spring and it will be accountable to this House through the Secretary of State for Health.

Helen Jones: I know that consumers will welcome the establishment of the Food Standards Agency. Given the widespread public concern and confusion about genetically modified food, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the agency will make sure that proper advice and information, including proper labelling, are available, so that consumers may make an informed choice about whether or not they wish to eat products containing GM food?

Ms Quin: Even in advance of the establishment of the agency, the Government have been active on labelling with relation to GM food. The legislation has ensured that

the Food Standards Agency will be the competent authority for authorising GM foods. It will be assisted by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, and the existing arrangements within Government. We are happy that, with the establishment of the agency, we will have an excellent regulatory system in which the consumers of this country can have confidence.

Mr. Colman: I am pleased with that answer, but it is my view that there should be a UN-based, not a World Trade Organisation-based, world food standards agency. What discussions have my right hon. Friend's officials had, in setting up the UK Food Standards Agency, with the officials at the Codex Alimentarius, which is administered by the World Health Organisation and the FAO?

Ms Quin: Officials regularly meet with WHO officials and those specifically involved in the Codex Alimentarius outfit.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Outfit?

Ms Quin: Yes. We are making a positive contribution to the Codex Alimentarius system. My hon. Friend raises an important point because, although the establishment of the Food Standards Agency here is important, it is also vital that this country's knowledge and expertise in some areas is channelled into the wider UN system and the WHO.

Mr. Owen Paterson: In major cases of food poisoning in meat in the future, who will be held publicly responsible—the Meat Hygiene Service or the Food Standards Agency, which will be simultaneously policing the Meat Hygiene Service as well as administering it?

Ms Quin: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the interesting Third Reading debate held in the other place, he will see that my noble Friend Baroness Hayman, who leads for the Government on the issue, went into detail about the relationship between the Meat Hygiene Service and the Food Standards Agency, so that they are able to work with each other, while having their separate responsibilities and functions.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Will the powers of the European food authority—which we assume that the Government support—override those of the UK Food Standards Agency? If it does not take precedence, why cannot the Government go ahead unilaterally with a scheme for simple, clear and honest labelling of food products? Does it not speak volumes about this Government's track record of saying one thing and doing another that, although they pay lip service to labelling, they cannot bring themselves to support the private Member's Bill soon to be proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien)?

Ms Quin: The Government support in general terms the proposals of the European Commission to establish a European Union food standards authority. We will work with the Commission and our partners in the Council of Ministers to try to make sure that the final system that comes out of the consultation process is as effective as possible.
We have had the Commission's support in recent food safety disputes because we have accepted our responsibilities in the European Union framework and ensured that our national system complements it. We believe that we can have a system whereby we benefit from the strength of the EU acting together and make a constructive input to that system through our own Food Standards Agency. When there is clear agreement at European level to take certain action and enact certain policies we shall abide by it, by contrast with certain other EU countries at present.

Organic Farming

Ms Joan Walley: How many farmers began the process of conversion to organic production in 1999. [107884]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): All 1,176 farmers who applied for conversion aid under the organic farming scheme in 1999 had begun the process of conversion by the beginning of the year. Few, if any, will have converted without applying for aid.

Ms Walley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He should be congratulated on the extra money for organic farming, but may I warn him that he could be a victim of his own success? I understand that in January 2000 alone, the Organic Conversion Information Service received 351 applications from people wishing to convert to organic production. Will there be new money for new conversions between now and April 2001? If not, will he have further urgent talks to see what extra money could be available through the rural development plan? Will he perhaps consider what has been done in Wales and the possibility of giving retrospective guarantees for those who want to convert before April 2001?

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. There has been a huge increase in organic conversion and that is not unrelated to our doubling of organic conversion payments in order to encourage it. The Government want to give farmers as many diversification options as possible. The allocation to April 2001 has been made; but I take my hon. Friend's point and we shall take further action if there are opportunities to do so. However, I reassure her that the England rural development plan makes available a further £140 million for organic conversion over the next seven years.

Mr. Peter Luff: Is the Minister available—[Laughter.] I am sure he is. Is he aware of how badly livestock producers who have converted to organic fanning have been affected by the decimation of the rural abattoir network, which has made it effectively impossible for many of them to sell their meat as organic? I urge him urgently to consider that question and the establishment of a proper network of mobile abattoirs in rural areas.

Mr. Morley: That is an important point. At least two mobile abattoirs are operated by the Humane Slaughter Association and they play an important role in terms of organic livestock. As part of the review of red tape, we are

considering some of the cost burdens on small abattoirs— which also have an important part to play in the organic sector—to see what assistance we can give them.

Joan Ruddock: Does my hon. Friend agree that organic production is based on good science and best farming practice? In the light of recent utterly unwarranted claims that there are dangers in organic food, will the Department undertake to evaluate its merits, or perhaps suggest that the Food Standard Agency make that one of its first priorities?

Mr. Morley: I understand that a number of organic organisations are carrying out a detailed study of some of the points to which my hon. Friend refers. I saw the article in question. Articles are written for and against organic food and some claims are not always backed by the facts. I agree that any claim for organic or non-organic food must be backed by sound science, and the Department will evaluate all the available information it has.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Is the Minister aware of consumers' growing demand for organic foods, and of the fact that 70 per cent, of organic food sold through British shops is imported? Will he do more to make money available to British farmers who want to convert? The supply of money from the Ministry does not meet the demand from agriculture.

Mr. Morley: Demand has certainly increased, but only 400 farmers converted to organic farming under the regime of the previous Administration. In the past year alone, 1,100 farmers converted because of the increased aid that the Government have provided. We want to do more. Organic foods constitute an expanding market, and we want our farmers to take more of a share. We are making more resources available to help them do that.

Rural Enterprise

Mr. Phil Hope: If he will make a statement on Government support for developing new rural enterprises. [107887]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The England rural development plan, on which we propose to spend £1.6 billion, explains how we propose to use the rural development regulation to support the development of rural enterprises over the next seven years.

Mr. Hope: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Farmers in my constituency and the National Farmers Union recognise that agriculture faces structural problems which require fundamental change, as well as short-term measures to help with current difficulties. I welcome the Government's rural development plan, which signals a new direction for farming and the rural economies. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the proposed transfer of wasteful subsidies to new environmental schemes and farming enterprises will mean real cash and support for farming communities in my constituency?

Ms Quin: Yes, I can reassure my hon. Friend about that, because we have been able to get extra spending from the Government to match the modulation system that


we are introducing, and because there have been increases in some specific schemes to help the transition to organic farming, as well as marketing and enterprise schemes. Real new money is available and my hon. Friend is right to say that it represents a new way forward.
The regulation is important because it allows support to be given to some of the sectors that do not receive mainstream support from the subsidised common agricultural policy. It allows pig farmers, poultry farmers and others to apply for assistance. It thus provides for a better, more flexible system in future.

Mr. James Paice: Following the Prime Minister's successful tour of the south-west last week, when he managed to convince any remaining doubters that he knows nothing and cares less about the true state of the rural economy and of rural enterprise, why did he not tell farmers about the proposed closure of two thirds of MAFF regional offices? That could mean the end of the Exeter office, which is the only MAFF office in the south-west. Does the Minister understand the impression that that will give to farmers, who are in the middle of an agricultural crisis, and who need the support from, and the face-to-face contact with, excellent MAFF officials? If the Minister goes ahead and closes two thirds of the network of offices, it will simply confirm to farmers that the Government are all talk and no action and that they do not care.

Ms Quin: That was an extraordinary question, given the launch last week of the rural development plan and the extra money that we have put into agriculture. As well as the Prime Minister's visit to the south-west, during which he spent two days in the region, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other Ministers from the Ministry and from the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions visited rural areas throughout the country.
The launch of the rural development plan was important to show that we are keen to ensure that the new measures benefit all regions of the country. In the Ministry's regional review, we are trying to ensure that the service to regions is enhanced, not reduced. The hon. Gentleman's alarmist claims are therefore completely wide of the mark.

Subsidies (CAP)

Mr. Andrew Reed: What estimate he has made of the proportion of farm income derived from subsidies and price supports under the common agricultural policy. [107888]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The overall value of direct payments and price supports received by UK producers in 1998–99 represented 230 per cent, of total income from farming.

Mr. Reed: Despite the enormous subsidies that go to farmers, we recognise that they are in crisis. However, does that not show that we are not getting good value for money from the common agricultural policy and other policies? Will the Minister ensure that we work harder to get much more of that money into things such as rural development plans to allow those farmers to convert,

and so that farmers are eventually paid for the work which they do but are not paid for—country stewardship and such things—rather than the Government interfering in the way they work on their farms?

Ms Quin: I welcome the broad thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. We want a new sense of direction in agriculture. That is precisely what we are trying to achieve through the rural development regulation. The way the CAP has developed in recent years has distorted payments throughout the agriculture sector. Often, it has been difficult to support the sectors that we have wanted to support. At the same time, money has been spent through the CAP in a distorting way. We have made an imaginative start with the rural development regulation. I am glad that certain other European countries are taking a close interest in what we are doing.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Welsh Language

Mr. Win Griffiths: What provision the Crown Prosecution Service makes for Welsh speakers in the conduct of proceedings in Wales. [107907]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): It has been the CPS's policy in the conduct of its business to treat the Welsh and English languages on the basis of equality. That policy was given further effect by the publication of the "Welsh Language Scheme" on 27 January. The Welsh Language Board has approved the scheme. It aims to enable anyone who communicates with the CPS in Wales to do so in Welsh, if they so choose.

Mr. Griffiths: Is my hon. and learned Friend confident that there are enough Welsh-speaking chief Crown prosecutors to ensure that, in all cases where participants are Welsh speakers, they will be able to use their mother tongue?

The Solicitor-General: There are a number of Crown prosecutors who can speak Welsh. I think that about a quarter of them can, which compares favourably with the population as a whole. In addition, there are members of the Bar in Wales who can conduct trials in Welsh. Although it is a responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department, there are people who can interpret. I am confident that people in Wales can conduct criminal proceedings in Welsh.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: As a member of the Welsh Bar, I know that provision is patchy in Wales. The CPS should run courses to train people to conduct and to deal with advocacy through the medium of the Welsh language. It is only proper that that should happen; and it should be an all-Wales scheme.

The Solicitor-General: As I said in my original answer, there is a dual policy. The Welsh language advocacy training programme supports Crown prosecutors to enable them to prosecute cases in Welsh—but I take the point. We are working on it.

Unclaimed Assets

Dr. Brian Iddon: What criteria are applied to the distribution of unclaimed assets of dissolved companies and intestate individuals; and if he will make a statement. [107908]

The Solicitor-General: In the case of dissolved companies, their beneficial property and rights vest in the Crown as bona vacantia. The Treasury Solicitor acts as the Crown's nominee for dealing with such assets for England and Wales, other than in the Duchies of Cornwall or Lancaster.
The criteria for distribution of the estate of intestate individuals are laid down in the Administration of Estates Act 1925. Where an individual has died intestate without known kin, the estate will fall to the Crown.

Dr. Iddon: How does the Treasury Solicitor dispose of money arising from those sources that is left in bank accounts? What is the value of such money?

The Solicitor-General: To answer the second question first, some £10 million net every year is administered in that way. In relation to money in bank accounts, that will go to the Crown, although it may be that claims can be made by, for example, unpaid creditors. In some cases, former members of the dissolved company can make an application.

Mr. John Burnett: Is there a register, open to the public, of unclaimed estates of intestates? What is the time limit for claimants with genuine and proven claims to make claims against the Crown where assets have been confiscated by the Crown? Is that time limit effectively 30 years?

The Solicitor-General: There is no such register of intestate individuals. I understand that there are about 2,000 cases every year, and that in about one third of them a next-of-kin is ultimately identified, so that money does not go bona vacantia. In some cases persons who do not have a legal claim but may have a moral claim—for example, they looked after the deceased—can make a claim and the Treasury Solicitor may make an ex gratia payment. The hon. Gentleman is right about the time limit; there is a time limit.

Rape Prosecutions

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If he will review the arrangements for the prosecution of crimes of rape. [107909]

The Solicitor-General: The principles applied by the Crown Prosecution Service in rape cases are governed by the code for Crown prosecutors. In order to prosecute, a Crown prosecutor must be satisfied that the evidential and public interest tests set out in the code are met.
The Home Office is leading a review of all sex offences in the common and statute law of England and Wales, and expects to issue a consultation document this spring.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In all seriousness, what are we to do about women who make false allegations of rape

against men, sometimes four years after the alleged event? Surely juries have a duty to demand far more evidence if they want to convict, because very often their decisions, which can be wrong, lead to further injustice, as happened in the case of Owen Oyston.

The Solicitor-General: The conviction rate in reported rape cases is 9 per cent; it is quite low. There is quite a high attrition rate. The CPS will prosecute only if a very high evidential test is met. It must be sure that there is a realistic prospect of conviction. Because consent is the issue in most cases, and because the parties involved in the majority of cases will have an acquaintanceship, that is a very difficult evidential test to be met. So I assure my hon. Friend that prosecutions are undertaken only in cases where there is clear evidence. Moreover, the public interest test that I mentioned will almost always be met, given that rape is a gross violation of a person's integrity.

Information Technology (Reading CPS)

Jane Griffiths: What plans he has for investment in information technology for the Crown Prosecution Service in Reading in 2000–01. [107910]

The Solicitor-General: I am pleased to report that the Reading CPS office will benefit from a significant IT investment this year and next.
The sum of £12 million from the Government's capital modernisation fund, together with existing CPS resources, will fund the so-called Connect 42 project, which will enable CPS staff to have access to modern PCs across the 42 CPS areas for the first time. It will also facilitate electronic mail communications with other agencies. The national roll-out to all CPS areas will be between August this year and July next year.

Jane Griffiths: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that very welcome reply. He will recall visiting the Crown Prosecution Service in Reading last year. Does he agree that the staff there will not only be grateful for this investment, but will be enabled finally to put into practice their commitment to fast and efficient justice for the 21st century?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend and I both visited the Reading office last year and saw a local initiative undertaken by one of the staff. I commend that member of staff, who has developed a local tracking system. Ultimately we need to develop the information tracking system nationally.
As well as the £12 million modernisation fund, there is a public-private partnership which will go beyond the initial modernisation stage and will enable the different agencies—the courts, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service—to talk to each other. In the end, as my hon. Friend said, that will lead to joined-up justice between the different agencies and more efficient justice.

Mr. Edward Garnier: No doubt the £12 million going to the Reading CPS office will be welcome—[Interruption.] Ah; it appears that there will be only £12 million nationwide. Is that not a ridiculously small sum? Information technology is not a new idea. The Government have been in office for nearly three years;
if they are only just getting round to putting a small amount of money into Reading, and only just getting round to putting £12 million into the whole CPS, is it not time for the Solicitor-General to invite the CPS inspectorate to take a thorough look at his own policy-making system, and a thorough look at the use of information technology throughout die CPS?

The Solicitor-General: I know the hon. and learned Gentleman is on a bit of a high, but that was over the top.
Under the last Government, very little money was put into technology. Crown prosecutors had virtually no access to it, and their case-tracking system was pretty hopeless. We have started the job that will give them access to basic technology. E-mails, for example, will enable them to talk to the police, and therefore operate more efficiently. Remedying the defects with which the last Administration left us, however, will require a long and detailed programme.

Victims of Crime

Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the role of police officers in dealing with victims of crime exclusively on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service. [R] [107911]

Mr. Vernon Coaker: What recent steps have been taken to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service has a greater role in dealing directly with victims of crime. [107916]

The Solicitor-General: Under the citizens charter, the police are responsible for keeping the victim informed of developments in the case.
The Government have accepted the Glidewell and Macpherson recommendations in relation to the CPS assuming a greater responsibility for direct communication with victims. Six pilot studies to assess the operational impact of such communication are now under way. Information from those pilot studies will help the planning of a wider options study, due to begin in April 2000.

Dr. Lewis: I am grateful for that constructive reply, but I urge the Solicitor-General to press on. Does he not agree that the system is skewed too much in favour of the defendant and against the victim, especially in complicated technical cases in which the defendant can directly consult the lawyers representing him, but the victim can only communicate what are sometimes precise,

detailed, technical points to the Crown prosecution lawyers via the medium of a policeman who, with the best will in the world, will be untrained in detailed legal matters? I urge the Solicitor-General to act on the results of his pilot schemes with the utmost speed.

The Solicitor-General: I know that the hon. Gentleman has long been interested in this matter, and he is right to suggest that the approach of the police is sometimes not the right approach, in that they can get the message garbled. It is better for the prosecutors to be able to communicate directly with victims, but this will be a long process. The practice already exists in relation to homicide, but the aim of the pilot projects is to ensure that it can apply to offences more generally.
I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about victims' access to prosecutors, but by the same token, it is important for prosecutors to continue to act in the public interest, and in some cases that is not on all fours with the arrangements applying to defendants and their counsel.

Mr. Coaker: Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that the CPS keeps victims of crime informed about the progress of prosecutions, and that the reasons for action taken by the CPS are explained to them?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right. Victims need to be kept informed, and we are taking a number of steps to ensure that they have a more central place in the criminal justice system. Their views must be taken into account, and one aspect of that is ensuring that they are kept informed. My only regret is that one of the six pilot schemes is not located in my hon. Friend's constituency; but on the basis of the national roll-out, his area will benefit

Mr. Ian Bruce: I wonder whether the Solicitor-General is satisfied that the amount of police resources available for co-operation between police and the CPS is sufficient. Has he made vigorous representations on the 5,000 police officers whom we all thought would be extra in the system—and whom the CPS requires for all the work that it is doing—or has he accepted that the number of police officers will continue to be reduced?

The Solicitor-General: The CPS of course depends on police—police investigate, and the CPS prosecutes. We have taken a number of steps to ensure that there are adequate numbers of police officers. However, we were faced, before May 1997, with a considerable decline in the numbers of police.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill (First Day).
Motion on the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2000.
TUESDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Postal Services Bill.
Motions on the Greater London Authority (Election) Orders—the Greater London Authority Election Rules 2000 (SI 2000 No. 208) and the draft Greater London Authority (Election Expenses) Order 2000.
WEDNESDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill (Second Day).
THURSDAY 17 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Armed Forces (Discipline) Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 18 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 21 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [5th Allotted Day]. Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "Excellence in Education: the Government's Failure to Deliver" followed by a debate on the Millennium Dome. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
TUESDAY 22 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Defence White Paper on a Government motion (First Day).
The provisional business for the week following the Adjournment will include:
MONDAY 28 FEBRUARY—Conclusion of debate on the Defence White Paper on a Government motion.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 1 March, there will be a debate on European Community humanitarian and development aid in European Standing Committee B.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 16 February, there will be a debate on the 1999 review of telecommunications legislation and radio spectrum policy in European Standing Committee C. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 1 March 2000:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents: 10497/99, 10705/99, 11203/99, 12456/99, EC's Humanitarian and Development Aid. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC-34-xxxi (1998-1999).]

Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business for the weeks thereafter. The House remains concerned about Northern Ireland. May we have a statement, on Monday,

from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the use that he plans to make of the powers that he has been given if the current discussions are unsuccessful?
When will the Government publish the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference? Subsequent to its publication, may we have a debate, in Government time, on Labour's plans for a European army, tax harmonisation and the renunciation of the veto?
What has happened to reform of the House of Lords? The Government invited Lord Wakeham's commission to report quickly, but, since the baton was handed over to the Government, the pace has dropped from a sprint to a stroll. When will we debate the report and learn of the Government's proposals to take matters forward?
The right hon. Lady has announced a defence debate. Will the terms of that debate be sufficiently wide to embrace the critical report of the Defence Select Committee expressing alarm at the extent of overstretch in our armed forces?
Finally, reverting to my request for a St. David's debate on Wales, would it not be appropriate for the Prime Minister to open that debate and explain to the House the precise relationship between his highly centralised Administration and the devolved Welsh Assembly

Mrs. Beckett: First, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the plans of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend will, of course, keep the House informed. As to whether he will be coining to the House on Monday to make a statement, obviously the situation is fluid and I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that now. However, I shall certainly make my right hon. Friend aware of his express request for such a statement.
The right hon. Gentleman asked when the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference will be published. I think that "soon" is the correct answer to that. However, he then made some slightly surprising observations on the European army, on tax harmonisation and on renunciation of the veto. I remind him that it was Lady Thatcher who first signed up to the notion of a European defence role. That was endorsed by her successor, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). On tax harmonisation, the Government have made it plain that we retain control of our tax affairs. On the veto, we are prepared to explore issues when there is merit for Britain's case, but we have never renounced the veto. The only person who has ever renounced Britain's veto is Lady Thatcher.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked about a debate on the Wakeham report. I have already said that we are prepared to undertake such a debate. The right hon. Gentleman may feel that he has had full opportunity to digest its contents, but I do not think that most of the rest of us have. He will remember that Lord Wakeham said that he thought it deserved mature consideration.
The report of the Defence Select Committee will certainly be part of the background to our debate on the White Paper. We had to wait for the report before scheduling the debate. I do not anticipate the debate on or around St. David's day being opened by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I hope that whoever speaks in it on behalf of the Conservatives will be able to explain their precise relationship with Plaid Cymru. I understand


that the leader of the Conservatives in the Welsh Assembly has said that they would be prepared to support a Government of Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report commissioned by the Government on bed shortages in the NHS? It is a damning indictment of the stewardship of the Conservative Government, who allowed the situation to become so serious. Will she make time for a debate on beds in the NHS? She will be aware that a new hospital is being built in Halifax thanks to the Government, but some of us are concerned that there may not be enough beds in the plan.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I know of the enormous amount of work and expertise that she has built up on the Health Select Committee. I am aware of the report that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has published today, although I have not yet had time to study it. As my hon. Friend rightly said, it was needed because of the appalling record of the Conservatives. It considers how we should provide cover in the NHS in hospitals and outside. She may like to know that my right hon. Friend will publish a consultation paper today and the Government will respond to representations on 15 May. She is right to draw attention to the fact that we need to reassess the demand for beds in the light of changes in medical treatment.

Mr. Paul Tyler: When will we have the long-delayed statement on the Government's response to the royal commission on long-term care for the elderly? Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the statement is made to the House, rather than to Mr. John Humphrys on BBC Radio 4? Will she undertake urgent discussions with her Cabinet colleagues—and, if necessary, in the appropriate organs of the House, such as the House of Commons Commission and the Modernisation Committee—about arrangements for making statements to the House? Is she aware that the Secretary of State for Health made a long and substantial statement on the "Today" programme this morning about the report to which the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has just referred? No statement is being made to the House this afternoon. Indeed, we are not even being told officially about the consultation paper. Will the right hon. Lady look again at the issue? The national beds inquiry is very important, as she said just now. Why have we not had a statement today?
We got used to government by press release under the previous Administration, but things have become a great deal worse under this Administration. How can we expect the media to take us seriously and attend our debates if they can get all the information that they need from a broadcast early in the morning?

Mrs. Beckett: We had a debate on long-term care not so long ago. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's observations, but we cannot keep returning to the issue with great frequency. The hon. Gentleman also asked why there had been no statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on the report that was published this morning. Whatever the hon. Gentleman's impression may be, the figures show clearly that this Government have made far more statements in the House than did our predecessors.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the document to which he referred was a review report to the Government. My right hon. Friend was not announcing the Government's response or the policy decisions that the Government propose to take and to pursue. He was simply reporting that a review has been received and a consultation document will be issued. As for whether my right hon. Friend should have made a statement, all I can say is that if the Government were to make statements on all the issues for which statements are requested at Business questions, we would do nothing else in the House except listen to Government statements.

Mr. John Cryer: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 381?
[That this House notes with alarm the accession to power of the Austrian Freedom Party; further notes this organisation was aided by Austria's proportional electoral system; and calls on the British Government to confirm that the first past the post electoral system is fair, accountable and tends to lead to the exclusion of extremists of all kinds.]
The motion notes the aid given to the fascist Freedom party by the wretched system of proportional representation that operates in Austria—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] May we have a debate on electoral reform so that those of us who have the odd qualm about fascists, racists and Nazis can point out the shortcomings of proportional representation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has clearly commanded some support across the House. However, as he is aware, the Jenkins report has been published and, rest assured, no change will be made to the electoral system for this House without the specific endorsement of the British people in a referendum.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Lady will remember that last week I raised the issue of the document, "Sharing the Nation's Prosperity", and I obviously took her aback when I did so. In the past week, she will have had time to read it, and she may have read page six, which states:
In broad terms, the countryside is prosperous, contented and reasonably well served".
May we have an urgent debate in which we can point out the circumstances that confound that statement? In Lincolnshire, for example, we have inadequate transport, inadequate road communications, petrol charges are high, the rural post offices are closing, police numbers are falling and, as I have said many times before in the House, there are inadequate funds for the provision of important drugs such as beta interferon. We want to address those matters, and a debate in the House would be a good way of triggering that process.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has indeed raised the issue of the problems in Lincolnshire before, and I am well aware of them. They include issues such as inadequate transport and the decline of rural post offices, and they went on for decades under the Government of whom he was a distinguished and senior member. I have always thought, and frequently pointed out to the people of Lincolnshire, that their problems have much to do with their predilection for electing Tory county councils and Tory MPs.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for


Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), may I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether we may have a debate on Britain's relations with Austria, so that the Opposition could make it clear that they dissociate themselves from the actions of their sister party, the Austrian People's party, which is in the Conservative International with the Tories and has entered a coalition with a Nazi? It would also be an opportunity for those of us who share my hon. Friend's views about aspects of electoral reform to point out that the problem in Austria is complex. It is caused not only by the electoral system, but by a failure to deal adequately with the Nazi collaboration and the Nazi past of that country over many years.

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the near future, although I am sure that my hon. Friend will know that Foreign Office questions will take place on 15 February. I hear what he says about offering the Conservatives the chance to dissociate themselves from the decision taken by their sister party. It is a real source of difficulty for people across the European Union and there is much repugnance felt for the emerging attitudes of the Government of whom the fascist party is a part. I am aware that not everybody shares the view my hon. Friend expressed—or so it seemed, from the "noises off from the Opposition last week.

Mr. Peter Brooke: While I welcome the appearance on the Order Paper of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, and do not begrudge No. 10 the spin that this is by kind permission of the Prime Minister, does the Leader of the House realise that this conceals massive dilatoriness and incompetence on the part of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport? I advised the Department in January 1998 that the conditions of bipartisan support existed that would enable the Bill to go before a Second Reading Committee which, two years later, the Government have found time to do.

Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of the right hon. Gentleman's long support and strong efforts on behalf of what I entirely agree is a reasonable and sensible measure. However, it is not merely a matter, as he says, of the Government being unwilling or unable to deal with the matter with dispatch and efficiency. I rather think that in saying—quite correctly—that the matter generally has much cross-party support, he might have omitted from that support his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Mr. Brian White: My right hon. Friend may be aware that yesterday a number of e-businesses in the United States had to shut down because of being flooded by e-mails. Given that the Government published the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill yesterday, can she allow time before Second Reading for the Home Office to investigate the implications of that action?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an extremely interesting point. I am aware of the events to which he refers. He will note that we have a Home Office Minister

present who will have heard his observations. I cannot undertake that the Home Office will be able to produce a special response to that event before the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill has its Second Reading, but I can tell my hon. Friend that that sort of event is continually under review.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, that I was not able to catch your eye in Agriculture questions, because the subject of the debate that I would like to ask the Leader of the House to grant concerns the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have here two letters, the first of which is from the European Commissioner for Agriculture, Franz Fischler, dated 22 December, in which he says:
the Commission has recognised the BSE crisis as an exceptional occurrence, and has authorized a number of aid measures to mitigate the effects of the crisis, including aids for the pig sector.
The other letter is from a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of the British pig industry support group, in which they seek
the grant of an 'exceptional occurrence' and/or restructuring state aid to the pig industry".
I tabled a question on 27 January; I received a reply on 7 February. My question to the Minister was— [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I am rather pleased that the hon. Gentleman did not catch my eye during Question Time, otherwise I might have had to ask him to sit down. I think that the Leader of the House has the gist of what he is seeking, which is a major debate on these issues. Is that right?

Mr. Gill: May I repeat my question very briefly, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Gill: My question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was:
what representations he has received regarding EU grants for exceptional occurrences within the pig industry
The answer was:
We have received no representations and there are no such EU grants."—[Official Report, 1 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 78W.]
This matter needs to be cleared up in a debate.

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If I dare to disagree mildly with you, Madam Speaker, I am slightly sorry that he did not catch your eye, because he might have found someone from MAFF who was in a position to reply to his points. However, I will certainly undertake to draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I inform my right hon. Friend that I have digested Wakeham? I know that Lord Wakeham wants the life peers to continue down in the other place until they drop. Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to reflect on the implications of my early-day motion 376 on the life expectancy of life peers?
[That this House notes the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords which allows for existing life peers to remain in the Upper House should they so wish; further notes that the average age of male life peers is around 70 years compared with 64 years for women; calculates that the expected number of life peers dying within 11 years is around 49 per cent, of the 543 life peers (out of 550) whose dates of birth are readily available; postulates that it would be around 20 years before this expected number reached three quarters of existing life peers and 29 years before this figure reached 90 per cent.; considers it inappropriate for appointed peers to serve in Parliament long into the 21st century; recognises that appointment is no substitute for election; and calls for a wholly elected Upper House of 100 members.]
Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that according to my calculations, half of them will be dead within 11 years; 75 per cent, of them will be dead within 20 years; 90 per cent, of them will be dead within 29 years, but 10 per cent, will still be alive and kicking well into the next century? [Interruption.] I meant this century.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not being numerate at the moment. He had better put his question.

Mr. Prentice: Everyone knows what I meant, Madam Speaker.
May I add my Back-Bench voice to the shadow Leader of the House's call for an early debate on Wakeham?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interesting observations and statistics, which the House will study closely when they appear in Hansard. I take note of his point, but also note that this is the first occasion, of which I am aware, on which my hon. Friend has agreed with something said by the Conservatives.

Mr. John Wilkinson: In reply to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), who requested a debate next week on Austria, the Leader of the House rightly pointed out that there will be Foreign Office questions soon. However, do we not need a much wider debate than that on foreign affairs and on the incongruity of Labour policy? The Government are forbidding high-level visits not only to Austria, but to Chile—another good friend of this country. On the other hand, a succession of high-level dignitaries have gone to Cuba, China and other countries with nefarious regimes. The ethical foreign policy is in tatters and our interests are being damaged. May we have an early debate?

Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that our policy on Austria is not merely that of the Labour party, but of all the Governments of the European Union. [Interruption.] I know that that fact may be unwelcome to the hon. Gentleman, and he may consider it a recommendation against the policy. However, Governments across Europe are deeply concerned by events in Austria and have taken the same action as the British Government.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Thank you for calling me, Madam Speaker, as I was so excited by the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) that I nearly forgot to stand up.
Does my right hon. Friend recall that three weeks ago I referred to rumblings on the Government Back Benches about the freezing of the minimum wage? Does she accept that those rumblings have grown? Indeed, the rumbling that took place in Committee Room 7 last night may well have reached the Chamber by now. Does she agree that it is vital to have an early statement about a policy that seems to be leading to a decline in the real standards of living of some of the poorest people in our country? Will she ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make an early statement?

Mrs. Beckett: Of course I am aware of the concern that has been expressed. I am also aware of the popularity of the national minimum wage. So popular is it, indeed, that the Conservatives have decided that they cannot afford to continue to say that they will scrap it. May I mention a slight misapprehension? The Low Pay Commission's recommendation about the minimum wage was intended to be implemented on the date on which it actually came into force. It was not set a year early, and was not, therefore, already out of date by the time it came into force.
Some debates on the matter have overlooked the fact that the timing of the rate's setting was explicitly understood. However, I fully recognise that some people believe that the rate should be increased. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is also aware of that view.

Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the right hon. Lady find time, not too distant from the time of the defence debate, for the House to discuss the Government's response to changes in the Western European Union, the only organisation in which European countries not in NATO may discuss defence matters? Do the Government take a positive stance one way or the other—for or against—on our future parliamentary representation at the WEU? Would she also find time to discuss the future relationship of Parliament with the Council of Europe and with NATO? All three institutions require review, and all three deserve some of the Chamber's time for a debate on our reaction to proposed changes.

Mrs. Beckett: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman raises a serious point; the changes that are afoot in all those bodies are worthy of consideration. However, although those matters are important and serious, it would probably be difficult to find time for them on the Floor of the House because the pressure on business in the Chamber is always so great. The hon. Gentleman might consider whether it would pay him and those who take a special interest in these matters to pursue them in a debate in Westminster Hall.

Mr. David Winnick: I know that there has been criticism from Conservative Members in the Chamber today, and outside it, about the cancellation of the visit to Austria for the trade fair in May by a high-level person. Bearing in mind that the Freedom party is led by a person who recently described SS troops as decent people who have character, will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to holding a debate on Britain's relations with Austria?
In view of the fact that some of the criticism comes from those Conservative Members who are, first and foremost, defenders of Pinochet, should we not demonstrate that it is not only Pinochet, but characters who are willing to glorify the Nazis, whom the Tories consider worthy of attention and approval?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand that some Conservative Members have criticised the decision that has been made, and have expressed unhappiness about the stance taken over developments in Austria. I also recognise how abhorrent most of us will find many of the statements that are being made by the Austrian party to which my hon. Friend refers.
However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter, although the temptation to expose the inadequacies and divisions of the Conservative party is always strong.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the right hon. Lady consider a further debate on the future of sub-post offices? Does she realise that, although many debates have been held in the Chamber, in Opposition time, and in Westminster Hall, we have never received a straight answer to the question that we put so many times? Why, despite Government assurances, does the literature that they and their agencies distribute lead people to assume that, after 2003, they will have no choice? We need a debate so that Ministers can say, once and for all, that they are encouraging people to move over to banks, or that they will change the literature that gives people that impression? We need an urgent debate on that matter— we need it next week.

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid I cannot undertake to find time for the debate that the hon. Gentleman requests. Ministers have repeatedly made it clear that, of course, people will continue to have the choice to draw their benefits as they do at present. I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that, on Tuesday, the Postal Services Bill will receive its Second Reading.

Mr. Geraint Davies: When are we likely to have a debate on public transport substitution? With the arrival of the tramlink in Croydon, there are fears that the 130 bus will be cut—[Laughter.]—It is an important issue. Furthermore, in relation to public transport in Croydon, we need to consider guidance on retail car parking for in-town redevelopment, such as limits on car parking and environmental impacts. Might Third Reading of the Transport Bill provide an opportunity for that?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to raise issues of concern in his constituency at Business questions— many hon. Members do so. I am aware—as are many Members—that Croydon has had transport problems for a long time. They are the result—at least in part—of the Conservative legacy. I hope that my hon. Friend will use opportunities such as debates on the Transport Bill to raise those issues. It is a welcome change for an hon. Member to realise that such debates provide those opportunities, rather than to call for special debates.

Mr. Eric Forth: May we please have an urgent debate on the subject of Mr. Romano

Prodi—that well-known, intimate friend and protegee of the Prime Minister? Mr. Prodi seems to be given to making increasingly outlandish statements about the future of Europe. It would be of great importance to the House and to the people of this country if we knew much more about the Prime Minister's reaction to the statements of his friend and protegee—in whom the right hon. Gentleman places such trust and whom he so much admires—so that we can know whether the Government support Mr. Prodi's vision of the future of Europe and of the relationship between this country and Europe. Surely, that matter is of the greatest importance and urgency—before Mr. Prodi gets completely out of hand and takes the Prime Minister with him.

Mrs. Beckett: First, I see no need for a special debate, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister always makes plain his view on these matters. Secondly, I am sorry to have to tell the right hon. Gentleman, as I reminded him last week, that I fear I have ceased to take his bona fides on this matter seriously since I discovered that in 1975, when I was warning people of precisely what he is now complaining of, he was campaigning for the other side.

Mr. Tony Colman: I note that, so far, no date has been set for the Second Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, which of course ratifies the additional protocol to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It has passed through all its stages in the other place. Last year, it received support from both sides of the House with the exception of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
I would suggest that it is especially important that the Bill passes through all its stages in the House and receives Royal Assent before the end of March, because an international review conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is being held in New York at the beginning of April, and it is very important that the United Kingdom Minister at those talks is able to carry forward the view of the House that we need to take further measures to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are hunted out in any country in this world.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has taken a very close interest in, and done a great deal of work on that issue. He is right that the cause that he describes is important not only to this country and to our national well-being, but to international well-being. I hope that perhaps there will be an outbreak of discipline and common sense on the Opposition Benches and that perhaps such a Bill will pass, but, as my hon. Friend knows, that remains to be seen.

Mr. David Maclean: Will the right hon. Lady arrange an urgent debate on the shambles that the Prime Minister has made of the United Kingdom constitution? We see an utter shambles in Wales as the Welsh reject the Prime Minister's poodle; we see the prospect of a similar thing happening shortly to the First Minister in Scotland; and—without even mentioning Northern Ireland—we see the shambles that is now emerging from the other place, with uncompleted constitutional reform and even that Chamber, with the Prime Minister's placemen, rejecting the Prime Minister's policies. We have half-hearted constitutional reform in this Chamber.
When can we obtain an early debate, so that we may point out to the right hon. Lady that the latest polls show that the majority of the people of this country believe that the Government are now damaging the integrity of the United Kingdom, rather than making it more inclusive?

Mrs. Beckett: Oh, dear, dear—I fear that the right hon. Gentleman was not listening with his usual close attention a few minutes earlier, or else he would have raised a different matter. It is pointless for any Conservative Member to talk about the shambles of policy on issues such as devolution when, despite the fact that members of the Conservative party opposed devolution because they said that it would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, they are now proposing to support Plaid Cymru, which calls for exactly that, in the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Graham Brady: Is the Leader of the House yet in a position to say when the Government will grant the debates that were recommended by the sixth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which called for debates in both Houses to fix the numbers of special advisers that the Government can employ? Is that not especially important in the light of today's news that the number of staff employed at Downing street has increased by 300 per cent, since the last election, and especially as we discovered yesterday that even with three times as many people at Downing street, they still cannot tell the Prime Minister what is going on?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman raised that point last week. I am aware of the report. It may come before the House at some point, although it will not be next week. However, I believe that the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party make something of an error in continuing to draw attention to that point and to say that there are now more advisers than were enjoyed by the previous Government. Given the previous Government's catastrophic record and the general election result, surely that is not an argument in their favour.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Following the humiliating circumstances of the resignation of the First Secretary in Wales yesterday, has the right hon. Lady had any approach by the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement to the House? I understand that he does a two-day week and therefore has plenty of time available. Has she had any suggestions from the Government that the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland should do a job share and merely come here occasionally to speak on the subject of Wales or Scotland?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is overlooking the folly of the argument pursued by Conservative Members, in that they are now apparently prepared to countenance a party that advocates the break-up of the United Kingdom. He is also overlooking the pattern of events in the Welsh Assembly—on occasions, with the support of the Conservative party, it has had a vote of confidence once in every 17 sitting days. How the Welsh Assembly conducts its business is entirely a matter for it, but that suggests to me that it might do more constructive things.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Given the Government's dramatic reduction in police numbers—by

1,700 since they came to power, including a further 27 in Cheshire in just the past 10 months—and given that the Home Secretary is here to listen to my point, will the Leader of the House make time for a full-day's debate on how the Government have let down my constituents in Cheshire and the people in this country, whose fears are rising in direct proportion to the reduction in police numbers that has happened under this Government? Will the Home Secretary write to every hon. Member to tell us how that is affecting our constituents?

Mrs. Beckett: As a result of the changes made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, police numbers in Cheshire will rise by an additional 86 over the next two or three years. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that police numbers have fallen over recent years. They fell under the party which he supports, and which gave freedom to chief police officers to make decisions on how they spend their budgets and to what degree they spent them on police numbers. It is no good Conservative Members complaining about the outcome.

Mr. Owen Paterson: This morning we learned that the Prime Minister had had long, friendly and constructive conversations with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), even though the Prime Minister used the whole Millbank team to block the hon. Gentleman's progress to becoming First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly. We need the Prime Minister to come here to make a statement on the muddle that he has got himself and the country into with the devolutionary experiments. We would also learn how soon he intends to have jolly and friendly conversations with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

Mrs. Beckett: The Prime Minister has much better things to do with his time.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Could we have an early debate on the financing of the BBC? I am sure that all hon. Members realise that the two channels of the BBC are the only ones, out of the hundreds available, that are funded through a compulsory licence fee. Is the BBC's public service remit being fulfilled when the only farmers who could be found to say anything nice on the BBC about Government policy were the fictional farmers, Pat and Tony Archer? Although Greg Dyke is willing to ensure that positive spins are put on Government policy, that does not justify continuing to have a compulsory licence fee.

Mrs. Beckett: That was a rather convoluted way of asking a question about agriculture. Yes, of course the BBC has a public service remit, which it carries out. As for the notion that it is only on "The Archers" that anyone can ever be heard to say anything in favour of Government policy on agriculture or against that of the Conservative party, all I can say is that I have frequently heard members of the National Farmers Union doing precisely that.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Leader of the House recognise that there is now great interest on both sides of the House in having a debate on the Government's constitutional reform programme? That would give us an opportunity to reflect on the successes


or otherwise of the devolution settlement in Wales and in Scotland, on the interesting impact of the reforms in the House of Lords, and on the interesting impact of proportional representation. Most importantly, it would give the right hon. Lady and the Government the opportunity to let the House and the country know what further reforms they have in mind.

Mrs. Beckett: Given the repeated propensity of Conservative Members to raise this matter—despite the fact that I have already pointed out to them that they now say that they might support a Government containing Plaid Cymru, which is in favour of the break-up of the United Kingdom—it is a mistake for them to call for such a debate. However tempting the prospect is of a debate that would expose the shambles and misjudgment of Conservative party policy on this matter, I fear that I cannot undertake to provide time for one.

Mr. Eric Pickles: The right hon. Lady has disappointed everyone in the House with her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). Surely she is confusing vacancies in the police with actual numbers. Is she not aware that since her Government came to office, police numbers have dropped by 1,700, and a third of those losses have occurred in the past six months? Is she not slightly embarrassed that when the Home Secretary promised 3,000 more officers, the immediate reaction of 632 long-serving officers was to leave the force? Does she agree with Mr. Glen Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, when he says:
The bottom line … is that they give with one hand and take away with the other."?

Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking for a debate? I did not hear him do so.

Mr. Pickles: Yes, I am indeed asking for a debate— for a whole day, maybe two.

Madam Speaker: I want to have it on the record.

Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I have already reminded the hon. Member for Eddisbury

(Mr. O'Brien) and others, that police numbers fell under the Government whom they supported. The budget that we pursued for the first couple of years was the one that they put in place, so if they are complaining about the consequences of that budget, they are complaining about actions that they supported.
A remarkably consistent feature of this exciting and enjoyable episode in the House this week is that Conservative Members are continually calling for increased spending on a whole range of policies, while claiming to be in favour of cuts in public spending. It is time that they made up their minds.

Mr. John Bercow: I am sure that it was only by an accidental oversight that the Leader of the House failed to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on being named yesterday Opposition Member of Parliament of the year.
Can we have an urgent full-day's debate, in Government time, on the crucial question of political bias in television programmes in general and those of the BBC in particular? Does not the right hon. Lady agree that such a debate would be especially timely in the light of yesterday's article in the Financial Times by Mr. Christopher Dunkley, former host of the BBC's "Feedback" programme, who has spilt the beans and said that the BBC is biased in favour of the left and against the right, in direct defiance of its charter obligations? Do we not need an urgent debate about that important matter?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for informing me of the success of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth); I was not aware of it, and indeed I congratulate him on it.
I have not seen the article to which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) refers, and I am not acquainted with Mr. Christopher Dunkley, but he does not sound like an unbiased, objective individual.

Stansted Hijacking

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Stansted hijacking.
The House will, I know, have been pleased to learn that the hijacking of an Ariana Airlines plane at Stansted ended peacefully this morning. The plane had been on an internal flight within Afghanistan from Kabul to Maser-e-Sharif on Sunday 6 February with 186 passengers and crew on board when it was hijacked. After initial stops in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, the plane landed in Moscow where it was refuelled.
While the plane was on the ground in Moscow, we made it clear to the Russian authorities that the flight should not expect to come to the United Kingdom. None the less, the authorities in Moscow allowed the plane to take off again after, I understand, the hijackers had asked for information about a number of western destinations.
When we learned that the aircraft was heading for the United Kingdom, we decided to allow it to land, in accordance with our international obligations. There were serious concerns about the safety of those on board, given the threats that had been made earlier to kill passengers, uncertainty over fuel levels and reports of technical problems.
The plane landed at Stansted at about 2 am on Monday 7 February. Contingency plans were activated and Essex police took control of the incident. I should like to pay tribute to the patience, skill and professionalism of the police and all those who supported them to bring this dreadful incident to a peaceful conclusion. I believe that those sentiments are shared by the whole House and the country.
Eight hostages were released on Monday and another man left the aircraft on Tuesday. Four crew members also managed to escape from the cockpit on Tuesday. A fifth crew member was ejected from the aircraft early on Wednesday. Then, at 3.30 this morning, 85 more people left the aeroplane, followed at 5.45 am by the remainder on the plane.
It had been agreed that two of the hostage takers would leave the aircraft for a face-to-face discussion with the negotiators before the remaining hostages were released. No clear political demands were made at that meeting or at any other time following the plane's arrival at Stansted, although statements were made to the negotiators about the political situation in Afghanistan.
Hijacking is a very serious terrorist offence in this country and in all other countries that are signatories to the international conventions against hijacking. A total of 19 people so far have been arrested by the Essex police. The House will understand why I cannot at this stage go into any further detail about the legal process involving them.
All those released from the aircraft are having their health assessed, and a process of interviews is under way. We obviously wish to ensure that those who were taken hostage are able quickly to return to their homes in Afghanistan. We are making arrangements accordingly.
There has been considerable concern about whether this hijacking was an attempt to seek political asylum in this country, both in respect of the hijackers and any accomplices, and in respect of some of the other passengers on board.
Let me first make it clear that in the talks that led to the peaceful ending of this hijacking, no undertakings of any kind concerning asylum or any other matter were given by representatives of the British Government. The surrender from the plane was unconditional.
Of the 165 people on board, 60 have so far told immigration officers that they wish to apply for asylum, together with an additional 14 dependants. Most of the remainder have yet to make their wishes known.
Like other countries, we are bound by international conventions relating to refugees, but we are also bound by the clearest international obligations to prevent and deter hijacking. I must tell the House that, as a matter of public policy, I believe that the clearest and most unequivocal signals must be sent out so as to discourage hijacking, whatever its motive.
In the special circumstances of this hijacking, I have given instructions that I personally will make the determination of any application for asylum made by persons on board the aircraft.
While I must and will act in accordance with the law, I am determined that nobody should consider that there can be any benefit to be obtained by hijacking. Subject to compliance with all legal requirements, I would wish to see removed from this country all those on the plane as soon as reasonably practicable.
There are some striking features about this case. This was an internal flight from the international airport at Kabul to Mazer-e Sharif, a relatively small town with a population of no more than 130,000. In such circumstances, it would seem inconceivable that persons on the flight could have intended to claim political asylum unless, of course, they were complicit in the hijacking.
We condemn all hijackings unequivocally, and I know that this view is shared across the House and the country. We will respond resolutely to any such attempt to use terrorist methods, whether the aim is to advance a political cause or to benefit the individuals concerned.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement. I understand why I did not receive it until 12.57 pm, although it has made it impossible for me to examine it in some detail. I hope that the Home Secretary will therefore entertain the possibility of a written follow-up to the remarks that I shall make now.
I join the Home Secretary in one thing at least—in congratulating the police and all the others involved on the way in which they have handled a difficult situation and brought it to a safe conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman says that he informed Moscow that the plane should not come to the UK. What were Moscow's own obligations under international law? Will there be any follow-up activity as a result of the plane leaving Moscow and coming here?
Why the United Kingdom? How many countries that are signatories to the European convention on human rights did the plane fly over on its journey from Moscow to the UK? Why did those involved decide to land here


and try to take advantage of our asylum procedures? Is it because those procedures are known to be rather more congenial than some which appertain in other countries which are, nevertheless, still signatories to the 1951 convention and to the ECHR?
The right hon. Gentleman has said that we have a clear international obligation to deter this method of seeking asylum and to deter hijacking. We would all concur with that. Does he consider that one way of discharging such an international obligation is to make sure that our procedures are not noticeably softer than those of surrounding countries?
Does the Home Secretary agree that speed is of the essence in processing these claims? I welcome the fact that he has said that he will take personal responsibility for the decisions. Can he give an idea of the timetable envisaged? If he is able to take personal responsibility for these decisions, will he also take personal responsibility for any undetermined asylum claims arising from previous hijackings? Does he accept that the fact that there are still supposed to be outstanding claims on the part of hijackers who have paid a criminal penalty is not a deterrent for those considering the same method of getting into this country? Will he accept responsibility for those cases as well?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that as far as those who are responsible for the hijacking are concerned, he will place the processing of any criminal action ahead of the processing of any asylum action? Will he confirm that in considering whether asylum is appropriate, we would take into account whether or not people have freedom of movement, such as being on an internal flight; whether or not they have jobs; and whether or not they had freedom to travel to family weddings? Will he confirm that each individual on that plane must, in order to claim asylum, show genuine and individual fear of persecution?
Can the right hon. Gentleman now set out the cost of the operation at Stansted? If not, will he let me know when he will be able to do so? I would be grateful if he would answer those and possibly further questions.

Mr. Straw: As I said to the right hon. Lady behind the Chair, I am sorry that it was not possible to get a draft of the statement to her or to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), with the length of notice that I usually give. She will know that I endeavour to provide as much notice as possible—usually two to three hours in advance of my making statements. That was not possible in these circumstances, as I am sure she understands.

Miss Widdecombe: The Home Secretary is an example to the rest of his colleagues.

Mr. Straw: I hope that that is not put on the record. [HON. MEMBERS: "It will be now."] Then I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her sedentary comment. I will be happy to follow up any further questions that she may have, either in correspondence or on the Floor of the House. I remind her that we have Home Office questions on Monday.
The right hon. Lady asked about Moscow. We continue to examine whether the Russian authorities complied with their international obligations. There are obvious

questions about why the Russian authorities did not take steps to disable the plane so that it could not take off, which is standard practice in respect of any plane that lands where the intention of those on board has been to hijack it. Representations will be made to the authorities in Moscow, as appropriate, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
The right hon. Lady mentioned speed in respect of processing claims. I accept the need for that, and special arrangements have been put in place to ensure that the claims are processed as quickly as possible. My written instruction to the immigration service that I make the decisions on the initial determinations is part of that, although she will understand from her knowledge of immigration law that there are other processes as well. However, I intend to take the initial decision personally and as quickly as I can.
The right hon. Lady asked about undetermined claims arising from previous hijackings, but I advise her not to go down that route if she has any knowledge of what happened following the 1982 hijacking. It took place under an Administration whom she supported, although she was not a Member of the House at the time. I draw attention to the fact that the Opposition supported the Government when there was a hijacking in 1996 and I hope and believe that such support will be forthcoming in these circumstances.
As for people who are complicit in serious criminal acts and then seek to claim asylum, I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the fact that article IF of the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees provides clear exemptions from the consideration of any application for asylum in respect of those who are convicted of or suspected of being involved in certain criminal acts. There are also provisions under article 33 for the exclusion of individuals involved in other matters. Either of those articles may well apply in this case. There are other striking features to the case in addition to the fact that the flight was internal and to a relatively small town away from the international airport, as I mentioned. The right hon. Lady mentioned factors such as freedom of movement, whether the people involved had money, and what sort of genuine and individual fear they were subject to.
It is too early to give the full costs, but considerable expense is involved in such cases. However, it has been a matter of concern to successive Governments that, wherever possible, such hijackings should end peacefully, as this one thankfully did, but with the full rigour of the law applied to those directly and indirectly involved.

Mr. Bill Rammell: I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's statement. Given the proximity of my constituency to Stansted airport, there has been real concern there about the hijacking and enormous relief that it has been successfully and peacefully concluded. Like him, I congratulate the Essex police force on the superb and professional manner in which it conducted the operation. May I ask about the additional costs of the police operation? For whatever reason, it appears that a hijacked plane heading towards Britain tends to head towards Stansted airport. The costs are currently being met locally. Will he give sympathetic consideration to a


special payment to ensure that a national burden and a national responsibility do not fall disproportionately on the Essex police authority?

Mr. Straw: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concerns and those of his constituents. It is not possible for the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst), the Deputy Speaker, to intervene on the Floor of the House, so would you, Madam Speaker, allow me to refer to his concerns? I have been in touch with him. He has been very anxious indeed and has spoken about the hijacking on behalf of his constituents. We are all aware that the remarks of those in the Chair are circumscribed, but I am fully cognisant of the concerns of the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend about the hijacking's effect on their constituents and on the Essex police.
My hon. Friend asked about the costs that Essex police have had to bear as a result of the hijacking. As I said to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), it is too early to say what those costs are, but the Police Acts provide for making an application to the Home Office for an exceptional payment to cover such costs. I would consider such an application sympathetically.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I begin by joining in the tribute to Essex police and by paying tribute to the other public servants in the health service and the emergency services, and to the Home Secretary and his officials for the way in which the matter has been tackled and resolved peacefully.
It is appropriate to reconsider two international issues. The first is international responsibility when a plane first lands and is not passed on. The Home Secretary dealt with that point. Secondly, if crew members are involved in a hijacking, international regulations should preclude them from being crew members anywhere again.
Will the Home Secretary make it clear where responsibility lies from now on—that the prosecuting authorities, independent of the Home Office, will tackle criminal activities; and that the immigration authorities will deal with any asylum applications under rules that apply to everyone else? If the Home Secretary intends to make a practice of calling in asylum or immigration applications, as he did in the Tyson case and as he intends to do in this hijacking case, we should have rules to govern that, just as we have rules for calling in planning applications. That would be preferable to the Home Secretary's simply being able to pick and mix. Under such a system, people would not know whether they would receive special fast treatment from the Home Secretary or normal treatment from someone else.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the police and others involved in peacefully resolving this terrible hijacking.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about international responsibility when a plane first lands. My right hon. Friend and his colleagues and officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are urgently considering the matter. Clearly, it is worrying that the Moscow authorities allowed the aeroplane to be refuelled and to take off. A threat arises when a plane is first hijacked; it continues, and the responsibility is passed on to other countries.
However, all countries must accept their international obligations; if we are told that a plane is going to land, it would be a breach of our international obligations and utterly irresponsible if we prevented it from doing so. It would lead to loss of life, not only of those on board but of those who lived in the surrounding area.
In reply to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, 18 hijackings involving a European Union country occurred in the 1990s and the first year of the new century. Only two have taken place in the United Kingdom, one in 1996 and one this year.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned crew members. In my judgment, any crew members found guilty of involvement in a hijacking should be banned from further employment with aircraft.
As the House knows, prosecution decisions are not a matter for me, but for the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service. The analogy that the hon. Gentleman made between asylum applications and the powers of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to call in a planning application was slightly eccentric. There is no such parallel. There is also no direct parallel between my direct powers in respect of asylum seekers and the provisions of immigration legislation for entry into the United Kingdom. The law clearly states that the Home Secretary makes all decisions about applications for asylum. Given the fact that there are more than sufficient to fill my box every night, I cannot make all those decisions personally. However, I believed that, in this case, it would have the approbation of the House if I made it clear that I would make the decisions personally.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I echo the praise given to Essex police, to all who worked with them for a peaceful resolution of the hijacking, and to my right hon. Friend, his colleagues and staff. The events persuade me that it may be time for us to re-examine the 1951 convention, which was drawn up in totally different circumstances, to take better account of the great changes in international terrorism and hijacking.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, for paying tribute to the police and others. On the 1951 convention, his point has a great deal of merit. The simple fact is that the convention was drafted and agreed half a century ago in very different circumstances, before mass air travel, before there was much greater ease of travel across land borders and before the development of the criminal terrorist activity of hijacking.
As I have made clear, we are faced with a clash of international obligations and public policy: obligations in respect of refugees, and the clearest possible obligations in respect of the prevention and deterrence of hijacking and other international terrorism. I have made it clear where I believe the balance must lie.

Mr. Simon Burns: I add my tribute to Essex police for the fantastic and difficult job that they have had to do over the past few days.
First, in relation to the comments by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), if the county of Essex makes an application for funding at the right time, will that be


full funding of the costs of operations? Secondly, when we have advance notice that a plane is coming to this country as a result of a hijacking, why does it go to a commercial airport rather than to a military airfield, where it might for security reasons be easier to protect, after and deal with the people involved?
Thirdly, there are rumours in Essex that, during the time it takes to determine any applications for asylum, councils in Essex will be expected to house those people who have been involved in the hijacking. I should be grateful if the Home Secretary confirmed whether that is correct, or whether the Home Office will make alternative arrangements. How will the councils in Essex be able to find the necessary accommodation, given the pressure on local authority and housing association housing and the costs involved?

Mr. Straw: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I have no doubt that Essex police will make an application for full funding. He will understand that I will look at it sympathetically, but I plainly cannot prejudge it. However, I have made it clear by my actions over the recent past that, where an application for additional funding because of exceptional circumstances is well based, I am ready not only to give it sympathetic consideration but to make a contribution—in some cases, a full contribution—to the additional costs involved.
The hon. Gentleman asks a question that I know is in the minds of many people, particularly those in the area around Stansted, which includes his constituency: why could the aircraft not have been sent to a military airfield? Much consideration has been given to that issue by successive Governments. I ask him to accept two points. One is that it is in the nature of things that only short notice is given that hijacked planes are about to land. The second is that successive Governments have judged that arrangements that have worked satisfactorily are likely to work satisfactorily in similar circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the councils in Essex. We have not finalised the details, but my full intention is to ensure that responsibility for housing any of the asylum seekers is dealt with directly by the immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office, rather than by local authorities in Essex. I cannot give an absolute guarantee on that but, if there is any change, I will ensure that he and other Essex Members are informed immediately.

Mr. Denzil Da vies: My right hon. Friend has told the House that he personally as Secretary of State will take decisions in respect of asylum seekers. Will he confirm that should asylum seekers, or some of them, be refused asylum and therefore be subject to deportation, the normal appeal procedures will still apply?

Mr. Straw: Normal appeal procedures obviously still apply, because that is the law of the land. But the nature of any appeal depends on the circumstances of any refusal and the country to which asylum seekers are to be returned.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I thank the Home Secretary for his answers to the questions by my

hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), with whom I find myself unusually in agreement because of the close proximity of my constituency also to Stansted airport. It is good news that the Home Secretary will look favourably upon applications by Essex police for financial assistance, because in a situation like this, a tragic national and indeed international incident, it would be quite wrong for the people of Essex in one way or another, through the costs of housing, the police and other costs, to bear the full financial burden. Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating the managers of Stansted airport, who have also acted commendably throughout this incident and have been most assiduous in keeping local Members of Parliament informed about what is going on?

Mr. Straw: I commend the hon. Lady's intervention. I know her constituency very well, since I was born and brought up in it. My concern for the people of Essex is second only to my concern for the people of my constituency. Of course, the people who live around Stansted airport have already had to suffer very considerable inconvenience and anxiety as a result of this hijacking.
I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned the manager of Stansted airport and his staff, because the administration of the airport has been magnificent in very difficult circumstances. I add my own tribute to the managers and staff, not only of the airport but of all the airlines and others associated with the airport, who have managed to keep services going, broadly speaking, despite this terrible hijacking.

Fiona Mactaggart: I add my congratulations to those who have acted with courage and good sense in Stansted—the police and others. Is there any risk that my right hon. Friend's personal involvement in determining any asylum claims may complicate appeals that people may seek to make? Can he assure the House that any appeals will be dealt with swiftly? Can he also give an estimate of how long it might take someone to appeal in this case?

Mr. Straw: It is by no means unheard of for Ministers to make final, but initial, determinations in asylum cases. The law is very clear that all decisions in asylum cases made initially are made by the Secretary of State, so it is not as exceptional as people may imagine. As I have already made clear, I will act strictly in accordance with the law and look at the circumstances of each case. I have also made clear the overall framework within which I shall do so. It is right that I should do that, but in no way would that lead to any compromise of any discretion, which I am bound to exercise in such a case. Appeals obviously depend on the circumstances of any decision. I do not want to speculate further, except to say that we are seeking to put in hand arrangements so that any further adjudications happen as quickly as possible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I call Eric Pickles.

Mr. Eric Forth: I very much welcome the Home Secretary's robust—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Eric Pickles.

Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a great pleasure for me to follow the Back Bencher of the year.
I should like to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell). We owe a great debt of gratitude to the staff of Stansted, who have experienced two really important crises in the past few months and handled both very well. The first was the crash over Christmas. Their response has been remarkable.
May I return to the narrow point of who bears the cost? I realise that the Home Secretary will be sympathetic and reasonable—which is wonderful—but, as he said in his statement, this is part of a national contingency, and I do not think that we should rely on him using his discretion. Provision for events such as this should be made as a matter of course, which would relieve much of the current anxiety in Essex.

Mr. Straw: I am glad that we have solved the problem of which Eric wished to speak. I was perplexed about the possibility that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) had moved constituencies—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Again!"] I believe that the chicken run has been deferred for at least another year.
I know the area represented by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) nearly as well as that represented by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). I know that many people who work at Stansted airport live in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and that most people in Essex have used the airport's excellent facilities.
Let me return to the issue of cost. I do not want to make a political point, but the structure of police funding has continued under successive Administrations. In the first instance, individual territorial police services provide the facilities; then there is provision for applications to whoever happens to be Home Secretary. I do not think I could make it clearer that I will view applications sympathetically, and the sooner they are submitted to me, the sooner I can make a decision.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I condemn out of hand the terrible crime of hijacking, and join others in congratulating not just the Essex police, but my right hon. Friend on the way in which a very difficult affair was handled.
My right hon. Friend has difficult decisions to make. When making them, will he keep in mind the odious nature of the Taleban regime, which has eliminated women's rights and murdered and tortured its own citizens on an hourly basis? Before making those decisions, will my right hon. Friend engage in talks with other countries where there are movements opposed to the Taleban—such as Afghans in exile—to establish whether they will take these people, before sending them to certain torture and death?

Mr. Straw: Any decisions made by me will be made in accordance with the duties imposed on me, and will take account of, among other factors, the circumstances in Afghanistan as they are shown to relate to the individuals seeking asylum, and then the wider circumstances in which those individuals came to apply for asylum.
I think I have made it clear that the issue of removals may relate not to removals to Afghanistan itself, but to neighbouring countries.

Mr. David Maclean: I thank the Home Secretary for the robust content of his remarks, and also for their robust tone. He may be the first Labour Home Secretary in history who sounds more right wing with each year in the Home Office, rather than the reverse.
Without prejudicing the quasi-judicial position in which he is placed, the Home Secretary gave us the clearest possible hint that the whole thing may have been an outrageous scam. He will have to make tough judgments in the future. Does he accept that he will have the support of not just Conservative Members, but most people in the country, if he brings about legislative changes to ensure that if the country experienced a similar scam in the future, the perpetrators would receive long sentences and the so-called hostages would be given food, water and medical treatment, and then be sent home to their loved ones on the first available plane?

Mr. Straw: If the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me, on this occasion I shall not accept the bouquet that he has so generously offered me. It is the lot of Home Secretaries to be subject to comment from this side or that, according to the issue, and it is perfectly possible that, when we come to debate the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will be saying exactly the opposite.
On legislative change, the provisions of the criminal law are very severe indeed on those who can be proved to have been either directly involved in hijacking or complicit in one way or another in hijacking and other terrorist offences.
There is a wider issue, on the 1951 convention, and I have already offered the House my opinion on that in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I add my compliments to the police and special forces on their excellent work. However—why Stansted? I have not heard a satisfactory answer to why it was chosen. We have an air force base at Brize Norton, which I should think could have been isolated much more easily and without bringing the problems associated with a hijacking to a commercial airport. Was Brize Norton considered as an alternative for dealing with the hijacking? If not, why not?

Mr. Straw: I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me from ventilating too far the reasons why such an airport is appropriate. However, I should say that when air traffic control is told that there is an aircraft in the sky, that people on board are seriously armed with guns, grenades and possibly explosives, and that it wishes to land, there is not a great deal of time to make decisions. Quick decisions have to be made, not least on the basis of contingency arrangements that are put in place. On the basis of such considerations, the plane landed at Stansted.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I should like to raise with the Home Secretary the issue of consequences and penalties. First, on penalties, he has


already made the point that hijacking is capable of attracting a very serious sentence of imprisonment—life. He will know that, broadly speaking, I am against minimum mandatory sentences. However, in the case of hijacking, is there not a powerful case for saying that there should be a substantial minimum mandatory sentence? A minimum sentence of 10 years strikes me as appropriate.
Secondly, on consequences, may I reinforce the suggestion, which has been made on both sides of the House, that participation in hijacking should be a total prohibition to the granting or obtaining of political asylum, and that that should be made explicit? If it requires a change to an international convention, we should play our part in obtaining that change.

Mr. Straw: I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman's general views on minimum mandatory sentences. I also certainly would not argue against his proposition that the type of figure that he has in mind would be the least that the public and the House would expect in circumstances in which the courts judge that someone has been seriously involved in hijacking. As there have been very few occasions when people have been sentenced for hijacking, I do not have in mind the type of sentence that has been passed, but I am aware that the sentence may have been more than 10 years in some cases and less in others.
On participation in hijacking, as I told the House, article IF of the 1951 convention already provides that the asylum application of those who are convicted of, among other things, serious criminal and terrorist offences cannot be entertained. There may be a need for the convention to be amended not only as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, but more widely. We shall certainly consider that.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his determination to deal with the matter as expeditiously as justice allows. He offered some succour to the people of Essex in determining where those folk may have to remain in the mean time, but I am sure that he will also have some sympathy for the people of Hastings and Rye, who have 900 asylum seekers in a small part of my constituency that contains only 3,000 local inhabitants. That situation was not made any better by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who visited my constituency last week and made comments that were of no help at all. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the new powers available under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 that allow for dispersal will be used and that he will take account of areas that already have significant numbers of asylum seekers?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend will know that I am familiar with his constituency because my father lives there. [Interruption.] I think that we have covered the whole of my family this afternoon. I am aware of the pressures on my hon. Friend's constituents and of his concerns on their behalf. The arrangements that we have put in place in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provide for national dispersal of asylum seekers, not least

to relieve the pressures on London boroughs and a number of towns in Kent and around the south coast, including Hastings.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The Home Secretary said that the aircraft made intermediate stops at Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Russia before landing finally at Stansted. Intervention by the Foreign Secretary on his forthcoming visit to Moscow may be all very well, but we need concerted action by the International Civil Aviation Organisation in Montreal to ensure that no nation permits hijacked aircraft to proceed blithely on their way. It is all very well to talk about getting the Russians on board, but we need a total international ban.

Mr. Straw: I know of the hon. Gentleman's expertise on air transport issues. He has made a strong point and I shall ensure that his comments are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. John McDonnell: All fair-minded people understand the complexity of the decisions that my right hon. Friend now has to take, particularly hon. Members who have an airport in their constituency. I hope that the incident will not be dragged into the current racist campaign that some parties are waging against asylum seekers. We need to weigh the import of our actions and words on such issues carefully. Two weeks ago in my constituency a 49-year-old Lithuanian was about to be deported, but he was too distressed to be accepted by the airline. He was found hanging at Harmondsworth detention centre the following morning.

Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says. There is a conflict of international obligations on the issue and it is difficult to judge where the public interest lies. I have thought about the issue carefully and believe that the need to prevent and deter hijacking and other forms of international terrorism must be paramount. Nobody should benefit, including those from countries with considerable political instability. Such terrorist actions must not be allowed to continue.

Mr. Mike Hancock: For a plane of that type to fly the 2,000-odd nautical miles from Moscow to London would take more than three hours. When were United Kingdom authorities properly informed that the plane intended to land here? Did those on the plane request to land in other countries during the flight from Moscow? If so, which countries refused permission? The plane landed three times before it ended up in the UK. All three of those countries have regular flights to the United Kingdom. Is it not time that we said that those flights will not be permitted to land here if those countries are not prepared to accept their obligations under the law—obligations that all three have signed up to? That is the only way in which hijacking will be outlawed completely.

Mr. Straw: I understand that we were given three-quarters of an hour's notice. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, my understanding is that inquiries were made by the pilot in respect of possible landings at two other airports in Europe, but that no formal requests to land were made in respect of those


other airports. On the hon. Gentleman's wider point, we will make clear the need for all signatory countries of the international conventions against hijacking properly to accept their obligations at the acute point where they arise.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: If the Home Secretary has any relatives in Aldershot, he will know that they will warmly welcome his robust attitude to the problem and, especially, his recognition of where Britain's best interests lie in terms of the conflicting international obligations to which he has referred. If he is to exercise his discretion in the case of those asylum applications—and I hope that he will send out the clearest possible signal that they will not be accepted, otherwise he will encourage further hijackings—it is imperative that the courts do not seek to undermine his judgment in the matter. He is at least accountable to the House, and through the House to the people of Britain, whereas the judges are not.

Mr. Straw: I have no relatives in Aldershot, so far as I am aware. I have made it clear that I have to make my decisions subject to the law and in accordance with the framework of the law. It happens that as a result of decisions made by this elected House, there are rights of appeal in certain circumstances for those who are refused applications relating to immigration and asylum, and those decisions are made ultimately by the courts. It is plainly not possible in current circumstances for that framework to be changed suddenly.

Mr. Eric Forth: As a former Brentwood councillor, may I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in welcoming the Home Secretary's intention to be robust in this matter? I am sure that people throughout the country will be reassured by that. Is the Home Secretary worried about why it was that the destination of choice of the people on the aeroplane was the United Kingdom? Does he know why that was the case? Is he worried that we may have been seen as a soft touch? If so, will he bear in mind that people in this country and abroad need to be given unequivocal signals from the Home Secretary and the Government that this country will not be a soft touch and should not be regarded as a destination of choice in any remotely similar circumstances in the future?

Mr. Straw: I was more than worried that this country was the destination for the plane; I was deeply concerned that it was the destination and that innocent people's lives were at risk, and I was angry about the hijacking itself, a sentiment that has been expressed by everyone else concerned. I do not believe that the language that the right hon. Gentleman has used today is appropriate. As I have said, in the past 11 years there have been 18 hijackings across Europe. It happens that two of those, including the one that concluded today, have ended up in the United Kingdom, and the other 16 have taken place elsewhere in

the European Union. It is incumbent on all civilised states to ensure that as many measures as are practicable and possible are put in place to prevent and to deter hijacking.

Miss Anne McIntosh: The fact that the record of Britain's skies and airports has been so comparatively safe over the past 18 years means that this week's hijacking has sent shock waves throughout the United Kingdom. Stansted airport is familiar to me and, indeed, I travel between my constituency and Westminster through that airport. I know also that many of my constituents set off on holiday from that airport, and several of them have rung up today to ask for a robust interpretation by the Home Secretary of the international conventions that apply, for the reason given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It would be deeply worrying if Britain were to be seen as an easy option, perhaps even within the European Union, for hijackers.
I pay tribute to the Essex police and emergency services, those who work in and use the airport, and those who live nearby, who have had a tense time over the past three months, because of the Korean Air disaster and the hijacking. While a peaceful solution was reached on this occasion, it is acutely important that we are not seen as an easy option for future hijackers.

Mr. Straw: I do not want to rehearse the discussion that took place last Wednesday, a week ago, about our asylum situation. The fact is that we are not an easy option. As the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 comes into force, we are putting into place very robust arrangements which, in any analysis, are more robust than those which were put in place in 1996. Of course I accept that we have to be robust; we have to send out the clearest signals that we are not entertaining hijackers in this way, and that is what we are seeking to do.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I do not want to embarrass the Home Secretary by heaping further praise on the firm line that he has taken today. However, I was particularly impressed when he said that the criminals— the hijackers—must face the full rigour of the law. I also noted that he said that he would be sending people back to Afghanistan, or possibly that area, as soon as is practically possible. The hijacking took place in Afghan air space, of an Afghan airliner, with Afghan people. The crime was committed in Afghanistan. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that in his discussions with Law Officers, he will be looking at returning the criminals as soon as possible to the place where the crime was committed?

Mr. Straw: Under international obligations, it is a responsibility, as I understand it, for those who are directly subject to the hijacking to take appropriate criminal action. Therefore, it falls initially to the Essex police, not the Afghan authorities, to take action in this case. I am clear that that must be the appropriate course of action.
As far as removals are concerned, I spoke about removals from this country. Precisely the country to which people are removed remains to be determined.

Points of Order

Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I refer you to early-day motion 340 in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and other hon. Members about Senator Pinochet? You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in October 1998, shortly after the Senator's arrest, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) put down an early-day motion applauding that arrest, or words to that effect, and I tabled an amendment saying that the appropriate jurisdiction for consideration of the matter was the senator's own country, Chile, to which he should be returned at the earliest possible date. Madam Speaker declared then that such an early-day motion was strictly outside the regulations of the House because the matter was sub judice.
The terms of early-day motion 340 refer to the medical examination of the senator, undertaken at the behest of the Home Office, and the fact that the results of that examination are secret, and also to the Government of Belgium, which is a party to the current action in the High Court. Is it not, prima facie, the case that early-day motion 340 is strictly out of order and should be withdrawn from the Order Paper?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I noted the point of order that the hon. Gentleman has raised with regard to the matter being sub judice. All I can say is that I think that this matter should be given more careful consideration.

Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During Business questions the Leader of the House inadvertently misled the House when she asserted that the Conservative group on the Welsh Assembly was prepared to go into some form of coalition with the nationalist party, Plaid Cymru. I have spoken with the leader of the Conservative group, Nick Bourne, who assures me that the Conservatives would not be prepared to form such a coalition.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those kinds of arrangements are not a matter for the Chair.

Orders of the Day — Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is based on the principle of equality before the law. It also provides added protection for the vulnerable. I am deeply committed to the Bill, although the Government and, I believe, the Opposition regard it entirely as a matter for a free vote according to individual conscience, rather than a matter for the party Whips.
I am saddened that yet another year has passed without this reform on the statute book. The House has endorsed the principle of equality not once but twice. We included child protection measures as part of the Bill last year and asked the other place to agree. Regrettably, it has rejected the Bill. It has opposed equality and failed to support— indeed, even properly to consider—the child protection measures.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: rose—

Mr. Andrew Robathan: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way later, but should like to make some progress first.
That was not a noble cause on which to oppose the will of the elected Chamber. I am sad at the delay that the Lords' opposition has caused, and at the need to reintroduce the Bill with, if necessary, the use of the Parliament Acts.
Whether or not the Bill is a matter of conscience, its issues have been considered several times by the House. Last year, we sent it to the other place with our overwhelming endorsement. We have had three separate votes on the Floor of the House, spending more than 13 hours in debate. In each vote, a majority of more than 180 favoured the Bill. In the debate on clause 1—on the equalisation of the age of consent—the Committee of the whole House voted in favour by a majority of 204. In addition, the clauses on abuse of trust received 10 hours of discussion in Committee Upstairs.

Mr. Swayne: The principle that underlies the Bill is that young men of 16 are sufficiently mature to be able to make an informed choice as to whether to enter into a homosexual relationship. However, the Bill's second provision is that they must be protected from people with whom they might enter such a relationship and with whom they should properly share a relationship of trust. Surely the second provision bears testimony to the falsehood of the first. Those two propositions cannot both be true. They are mutually exclusive.

Mr. Straw: The first proposition is whether we should equalise the age of consent. We could decide to equalise at 12, as happens in some European countries, or at 14, 18 or 21. My judgment, which I hope the House shares, is that we should equalise at 16. The second issue affects


people aged between 16 and 18. I should correct the hon. Gentleman's small slip in assuming that the provisions on abuse of trust apply only to male gay relationships. In fact, they apply to relationships of any kind.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I am in the middle of giving an answer to the right hon. Lady's hon. Friend. If she will hang on a moment, I shall come to her.
The second proposition before us concerns the circumstances in which people aged between 16 and 18 should be able to trust another person—specifically in a professional situation—but that trust can be abused. Our judgment is—although it is a matter for a free vote—that that position could be abused. For example, teachers or social workers in residential homes have considerable power over those aged between 16 and 18, as well as younger people, and it is possible that they could abuse that trust. That is our argument.
If the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) still wishes to ask a question, I shall happily give way to her.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. He said that we could decide on equalising at other ages. Will he confirm that, even if the House wanted to do that, he is giving us no opportunity to do so through the procedures under which we are debating the Bill? We will not have an opportunity to amend the Bill. We must take it or leave it.

Mr. Straw: I will not confirm that. Ministers propose, but the House disposes. If the House reaches a different view from that which I invite it to take, that is the end of that. The majority of the House is, I think, of the opinion that the Parliament Acts fall to be used in this case. The House has taken a view on the merits of the Bill not once or twice, but three times. The Parliament Acts can be used only if the Bill presented a second time is identical to that which was rejected by the other place on the first occasion. That is an argument in favour of the proposition before the House, and it is up to the House to decide whether to accept that proposition.

Mr. Robathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on abuse of trust?

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later, but I want to make some progress.
For me, the central issue before us is one of equality, of seeking to create a society free from prejudice in which our relationships with others, including strangers, are based on respect, not fear. When I was a young man, homosexual acts between two men were unlawful, criminal offences attracting a penalty—can we now believe this?—of up to life imprisonment. What did such harsh criminalisation achieve? Let me answer that by saying, first, what the criminal law utterly failed to achieve: it failed to achieve the elimination, or reduction, of gay sex. There were probably as many people who were homosexual then as there are today, but while heterosexual people could enjoy sexual relations in peace, those who were homosexual lived in fear—fear of

exposure, and of the misery that comes from having to live a lie. Our society suffered too, for it lived a lie as well, and dealt with that lie by institutionalising hypocrisy, pretending that everyone was heterosexual, while knowing that many people were not.
Criminalising gay sex in private for those otherwise above the age of consent did not protect those of us who are heterosexual, but it deeply scarred many who were not allowed to come to terms with their own sexuality, in peace and with respect from others.
It is worth recalling another discriminatory aspect of the law, which explains why the Bill is necessary at all. The Offences Against The Person Act 1861, which created the modern offence of buggery, made a sexual relationship between two males a criminal act, but sexual relations between two females were not then, and have never been, specifically criminalised. The law has never criminalised all same-sex relationships—only those between males. In time, that led to the anomaly that the age of consent for sexual relations with females was 16, but between males it was set at 21 in 1967, and at 18 in 1994.
I wish that we had moved then to 16, but we did not. Subsequently, a challenge was made under the European convention on human rights and, by 14 votes to four, the Commission—not the Court—found that our law was discriminatory.
In commending the Bill, I would say that it is a moderate measure.

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and shall not heap yet more praise on him to embarrass him further than we did earlier.
May I return to the child protection measures? I sat on the Standing Committee that considered those matters, alongside the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). All of us who served on that Committee know perfectly well that the child protection measures are a fig leaf and a load of nonsense. We conducted an investigation into them. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the likely number of prosecutions might be around two each year and that the provisions will make very little difference?

Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. Nor do I accept that the effectiveness of the criminal law can be determined solely by the number of prosecutions that follow from it. If that were so, the hon. Gentleman would be on his feet calling for the amendment of several highly publicised criminal offences created by the Opposition when in Government, although I would not.
Organisations that support equalisation and other measures in the Bill include the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and leading children's charities, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardos, NCH Action for Children, the National Children's Bureau and many others. Those people and organisations are at the forefront of dealing with the serious problems caused by the present inequality in our law.
I have explained clause 1. Clause 2 serves to decriminalise the younger party in male homosexual acts or buggery, if the younger party is under the age of consent and the other party is over the age of consent.
That clause was not in the Bill when it started out last year. We included it, during proceedings held on the Floor of the House, because we felt, as a House, that the present position was wrong.
A girl under the age of consent is not charged with a criminal offence if she has unlawful sexual intercourse with an older man. That means that she can seek help for sexual or emotional problems arising from her actions without fear of prosecution. The older man cannot blackmail her, through the threat of the criminal law, to keep silent if she is unhappy about her position or feels that she was forced to consent. Those are important safeguards for young people—as important for boys as for girls—and the Bill puts them in place.

Mr. Christopher Gill: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is wholly committed to the Bill and to making buggery legal for people aged over 16. For the benefit of those of us who have led a sheltered life, will he describe the act of buggery so that the House, and the public who are listening to the debate, know exactly what we are talking about?

Mr. Straw: No, I shall not accept the invitation offered by the hon. Gentleman. I wonder whether he understands how much he is detached from opinion throughout the country. Our society should be celebrated for the tolerance that it shows to people who lead a law-abiding life. People want to be allowed to live in peace, within the framework of the law. I happen to be heterosexual, but I could have been born homosexual, or I could have become homosexual. If that had happened, why should I be penalised and subject to the prejudice and abuse that the House has just heard from the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Gill: rose—

Mr. Straw: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman asked me an emotive question and I have replied. He is unwise—simply as regards his representation of his constituents, who are light years away from his intolerance and prejudice—to utter such opinions.

Mr. Gill: rose—

Mr. Graham Brady: rose—

Mr. Straw: I need to make some progress. I have already given way several times and many other Members want to speak in the debate.
The Bill provides a new offence of abuse of trust. We have already referred to that matter, which is also an important child protection measure. We were considering it as long ago as 1998, when the amendment on equalising the age of consent was tabled to the Crime and Disorder Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) moved an amendment to create such an offence. When the equalisation amendment was rejected in the other place, we undertook urgently to consider such an offence. That resulted in the measures in the present Bill, introduced last year.
The House will recall that we looked at the new offence in great detail in this place a year ago. Amendments were made to strengthen it; most significantly, following arguments made by Opposition Members, for the increase of the maximum penalty from two to five years. It is in the Bill in the form that we approved after those detailed discussions.

Mr. Joe Ashton: My right hon. Friend referred to the discussions held in Standing Committee. During the 10 hours of debate on the Bill, one of the matters that was often raised was the growing menace of pimps and the abuse suffered by 15 or 16-year-old girls and boys who were hooked on drugs. The conclusion was that the penalties for such abuse were not severe enough. We were told that it would not be practical to deal with the matter under this Bill, but an assurance was given that a sexual offences Bill would be drawn up to tackle the problem and alter the penalties. However, there seemed to be no mention of that in the Queen's Speech. Will my hon. Friend give us some information on that point?

Mr. Straw: It is true that there is no such legislation in this Session on the pimping offences described by my hon. Friend. I ask him to bear in mind that the Home Office is carrying a third of the whole legislative programme and that even that great Department of State has limits in its capacity to deal with that, in addition to other matters. I can reassure him, however, that offences relating to pimping and the penalties for such offences are being considered under the review of sexual offences that the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), is undertaking.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Will my right hon. Friend consider an anomaly that could arise in the future? The names of men who have already been convicted of private consensual sex with a 16 or 17-year-old will have been placed on the sex offenders' register. That will extend beyond the enactment of the Bill, and is unjust. Does my right hon. Friend have the power to remove those names from the register when—as we hope—the Bill is enacted?

Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I cannot give him comfort on that point. We cannot retrospectively remove names from the register; that is the obverse of the principle that we do not make criminal offences retrospective. If someone has been convicted of a criminal offence, I do not think that we can rewrite history to suggest that, by virtue of a decision of the House—later than the conviction—such a conviction should be deleted.
The offence of abuse of trust is targeted to protect young people, both girls and boys, who are most at risk or most vulnerable, or where the position of trust is strongest. The circumstances are closely defined to include matters such as residential care, detention and hospitals. They also include full-time education, given the special status of teachers and their well-established position of trust.
Abuse of trust may also occur in less well-defined circumstances, such as leisure, sporting or religious activities. In those cases, the position of trust may be less


strong, the circumstances less clearly defined, and the young person may be less vulnerable. Nevertheless, those points cause concern.
The Government have tackled that problem in two ways. First, the Bill includes an order-making power, so that the House can extend the scope of the new offence at a later date by affirmative resolution, if there is evidence of need. Secondly, on 17 September last year we issued all organisations that deal with young people with guidance on how to prevent abuse of trust. There has been a good response to that.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: rose—

Jackie Ballard: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), and then I shall conclude my speech.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his courtesy in giving way.
If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept that his claim to protect children wholly flaws the Bill—the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—will he agree that the abuse of trust protection, which he alleges he has put in the Bill, is inadequate? Will he tell the House how he would deal with a situation in which, for example, an 18-year-old prefect in a boys boarding school made advances to a 16 or 17-year-old boy? The prefect would have a position of some power—as a prefect. What protection is offered to children in those circumstances? The measure is disgraceful; it will completely undermine child protection.

Mr. Straw: It is not possible to draft a Bill that would cover every conceivable circumstance. The Bill deals with adults who hold positions of trust in relation to young people aged between 16 and 18.
I do not know much about the hon. Gentleman's background. I attended an all-male boarding school in Essex. Even at a time when the full force of the criminal law applied, circumstances such as those he described were not unheard of in such institutions.

Jackie Ballard: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way.
The right hon. Gentleman listed several organisations that support the Bill. The list did not include any of the teachers' unions. Although those unions support the equalisation of the age of consent, they are opposed to abuse of trust provisions. They believe that such abuse of trust, which we all decry, can be properly dealt with under the profession's disciplinary codes. They do not want it to become a criminal offence for a specific profession.

Mr. Straw: I understand the position of the teachers' unions, but I do not agree with it. It is very hard to argue that those who are in a position of trust, for example, in a children's home, should be subject to the criminal law, but those who are in the position of trust and power— very considerable power—that is exercised by teachers in respect of sixth-formers as well as of younger children—

Jackie Ballard: What about the power of Members of Parliament over researchers?

Mr. Straw: It is a matter of proportion and circumstance. However, I do not think that one can argue

that those who are running children's homes should be subject to the criminal law but teachers should not. I say through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the hon. Lady that the potential power that teachers have over those in their care is very, very considerable and that that trust should not be abused. When it is, these penalties are appropriate.
Let me deal briefly and in conclusion with two important issues concerning the Bill. First, I remind the House that the Parliament Acts may have to be used in this case, and it is because they may have to be used that I invite the House—it is a matter for the House—to pass the Bill in an unamended form.
The second issue concerns the impact of the Scotland Act 1998 in respect of this measure. That has created what may be a unique constitutional dilemma for the Bill, as the Scottish elements fall into an area that is now properly the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Executive therefore requested the Scottish Parliament to consider its position on the Bill. The terms of the motion moved by the Scottish Executive were as follows:
That the Parliament endorses the principles of equalising the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual activity and creating a new criminal offence of breach of trust as set out in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill considered by the UK Parliament in the 1998–99 parliamentary session and agrees that the UK Parliament should consider any Bill introduced in the same terms in the current session.
The Scottish Parliament debated that motion in great depth on 19 January 2000. It focused on the principles and content of the Bill and on the constitutional issue. I am delighted to report that it endorsed the motion fully, by 90 votes to 16. That was an overwhelming vote in favour of the Bill. The Scottish Parliament has therefore made it clear that it wants to end intolerance, prejudice and discrimination. It wants the added protections to be put in place. It sees the Bill as unfinished business, delayed because of the prejudice of the other place. It has given us a clear mandate to finish the business, as it should have been finished last year.

Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No.
The Bill is long overdue for the statute book. I hope that the House will again give it the overwhelming support that it deserves, and that we can pass it to the other place. We have had ample discussion on it.

Mr. Brady: rose—

Mr. Straw: We need to move now to action, to ensure equality and justice, and better protection for our children and young people throughout the United Kingdom.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: As was the case the last time this measure was debated in the House, the Opposition will be having a free vote tonight. The concerns that I shall express are my own, but I know that they are shared by many Opposition Members, and I should be glad if the Minister would address them in his winding-up speech.
My own opposition to the Bill is probably fairly well known. I am glad to have the opportunity to give some of the reasons for my opposition to it, but first I should like to look at the handling of the Bill and raise certain questions about that.
It is very unfortunate that the Government have decided to curtail debate on the Bill. Today will be the only opportunity that Members of the House will have to discuss the matter—unless, of course, amendments are made in another place. However, in the House there will be no Committee stage, no Report and no debate on Third Reading.
Given the interventions that have already been made on the Home Secretary, I should have thought that he would have wished to have seen a much fuller discussion in the House of the adequacy of at least the abuse of trust provisions in the Bill. There should have been an opportunity for concerned Members to table amendments to reflect some of the worries that were raised in the short time for which the right hon. Gentleman was speaking.
Although I acknowledge that the measure has been debated more than once by the House during the current Parliament—and, indeed, in another place—that is not in itself a valid argument for cutting off the proper scrutiny of the House, even if the Government have decided to invoke the Parliament Acts.
On Monday, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), said in the House that it would be open to another place to suggest amendments to the Bill. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) pointed out at the time, the Government have denied that opportunity to hon. Members, despite the fact that the Parliament Act 1911 makes provision for the suggestions procedure. Therefore, I wonder whether the procedure that has been adopted is the most wholly appropriate, given the concerns that exist.
For example, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) wished to table an amendment to the Bill, but has been denied that opportunity. That amendment would have addressed one of the concerns that has been raised about the European convention, because it would have equalised the age of consent at 18. The Government should have at least given the House the opportunity to examine that issue, and to examine the arguments for and against which hon. Members might wish to make. If the Government wish to base their argument in favour of the Bill on the fact that the House represents the democratic will of the people, perhaps the Government should have allowed hon. Members from both sides a little more democracy in considering its provisions.
The reason why the Government have resorted to the Parliament Acts is that these measures were rejected after a long debate and very substantial consideration by another place. Similarly, the Government's proposal to abolish section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 was recently rejected in another place. Perhaps, when the Government reflect on those two decisions, they may come to the view—as I have long come to the view—that the views that have been expressed in another place on both these issues better represent the views of the majority of the people of this country than do the actions of the Government.
There is also the matter of Scotland, which was briefly touched on by the Home Secretary. Clause 7 states that the Bill will extend to Scotland as a pre-commencement enactment, despite the fact that the Scottish Parliament

now has full competence in this area. I should be grateful if the Minister, in his winding-up speech, would address some of the issues that arise from that.
Will the Bill, in so far as it concerns what is now a devolved matter, be a unique case, or is the Minister aware of any plans by the Scottish Parliament to amend the provisions of the Bill, if enacted, which it could certainly do? Are there plans for different commencement dates in Scotland, and will it be the Scottish Executive or the Home Secretary who decides on the commencement? Can he confirm that the only reason why this legislation is now to extend to Scotland as a result of whatever will is expressed in the House, is to allow the current Bill to be pushed through unchanged under the Parliament Acts?
I shall now discuss the substance of the Bill. The age of consent is one of the major issues of conscience, and I know that there is a wide range of views on both sides of the House, and that those views are sincerely held. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said during the previous Session, I believe that we should continue to give the protection of the law to vulnerable young people, and very especially to young people in their mid-teens who may not have a fully developed sense of their sexuality. I believe that it is appropriate that the age of consent for homosexual acts should allow for that fact, and I believe, as my right hon. Friend did during the previous Session, that there is widespread support in the country for such a position.
We must, after all, remember that the age of consent for homosexual acts was reduced from 21 to 18 as recently as 1994. I do not believe that issues of equality should override the imperative to protect young people; and it is, in my view, wrong that a young person of 16 should be free in law to embark on a course of action that might lead to a life style that would separate him, permanently perhaps—

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Has the right hon. Lady ever met anyone, gay or straight, who has told her in all honesty that their sexual orientation was a matter of choice? She has just used again the term "life style", which implies that it is a matter of choice. She should know better.

Miss Widdecombe: Whether people choose to practise any particular way of life is a matter of choice. What they are inclined towards may not be, but what they choose to do—heterosexually or homosexually—is a matter of choice. I am never going to contend that heterosexuals have no choice over what they do; that would be a false contention. I will not patronise homosexuals by pretending that they have no choice, either.

Mr. Alan Duncan: We are debating essentially a matter of degree. My right hon. Friend said that it was only a few years ago that the age of consent moved from 21 to 18. Has that made any difference to people's conduct?

Miss Widdecombe: I believe that it probably sent quite a powerful signal. It is not a signal that I want to reinforce or to expand on in the course of any further changes.

Mr. John Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I would like to finish the paragraph as I was in the middle of it. I shall then give


way to my hon. Friend. He came a good second yesterday for the coveted award that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) won.
It is in my view wrong—I stand by that position—that a young person of 16 should be free in law to embark on a course of action that might lead to a life style that would separate him, perhaps permanently, from the mainstream life of marriage and family. In particular, I believe that such a person needs protection from older men.

Mr. Bercow: I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) was, to put it mildly, a trifle opaque. Would she be good enough to tell the House to what specific damaging consequences the reduction from the age of 21 to 18 has led?

Miss Widdecombe: I think that that was one of a series of deliberate measures and of practices in society that has led to a signal that there is somehow equal validity between the homosexual life style and marriage and family. That measure was a part of a signal that I personally reject.
As I made clear in my opening remarks, I am aware that some Conservative Members do not share those views, but the views that I am putting need to be put. We have had a clear speech in favour of the Bill—a personal commitment as well as a political imperative—from the Home Secretary. It is right and proper that there should be an opposing speech giving the other point of view. That is what I intend to do.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I am now going to move on to the next paragraph.
Most parents, I believe, want to see their children grow up and raise a family. Overwhelmingly—[Interruption.] Perhaps people do not agree. Overwhelmingly, that is how most children and young people see their future. I would therefore like to point the House towards a topical argument on the subject and one that I hope will be addressed further in the debate.
I remind the House of the words of the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), when he spoke on the procedural motion. He said that, since the Bill was last considered by the House,
nothing has changed that would affect the provisions then agreed."—[Official Report, 7 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 89.]
However, at least one factor in the equation has changed. The Government appear, as the Prime Minister restated in the House yesterday, to be fully intent on abolishing section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. That move by the Government changes the context in which we must view the provisions of this Bill.
If the Government have their way by means of the Parliament Acts or otherwise—and there is no reason to think that they will be persuaded by the arguments made in the other place—we will at once be allowing the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities and reducing the age of consent for homosexual acts so that

many who are still at school—indeed, some who have not even taken their GCSE examinations—will be able to engage in such acts.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No, I am going to finish my sentence. If the hon. Lady interrupts me again, I will not give way until I have done that. That is the score, so she can choose.
If the Government have their way, not only will 16-year-olds be able to engage in homosexual acts, but local authorities will be able to use public money actively to promote such activity. That point changes the context of the Bill and merits consideration by the House and a wider debate. Therefore, it merits a rather more generous attitude to the Bill's further stages than the Home Secretary has shown.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way, and I apologise for not describing her as "right hon." when I asked to intervene.
The right hon. Lady makes her argument, but surely an argument is based on fact. Will she at least admit that, when she was given two opportunities by her colleagues to identify facts that would back up her argument, she failed to do so? She expresses her personal opinion, but there is no hard evidence—figures, prosecutions or any other data— for her view that the Bill is a dangerous move.

Miss Widdecombe: The Bill is a dangerous move because it removes a vital measure of protection for young people from those very young people.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: There is an embarrassment of riches to choose from, but they all hold the same view. I give way to my hon. Friend in blue.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On the point that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) raised, and in response to the two questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), has not the growth of HIV and AIDS in the past couple of decades been very great? Are we not reasonably entitled to believe that the vast majority of cases are among the homosexual population, as I will argue if I have the opportunity to speak later? That is an example of the downside of such measures, and I hope that that point will be dealt with at length in the debate.

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, that point is a consideration and I look forward to my hon. Friend expanding on it. I also quote the view that I have received from many teachers and others who say that although some 16 year-olds may be ready to make such decisions, many more are not and they deserve the right to a degree of protection.

Ms Oona King: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I will, because I did not do so earlier when she and a number of other hon. Members rose.

Ms King: I thank the right hon. Lady for her graciousness in giving way. Does she agree that if young


16-year-old boys need protection from predatory males, all the evidence suggests that young 16-year-old girls need that protection more? Does she also accept that we do not choose our genes?

Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Lady had listened to what I said a moment ago, she will have heard me address that point. I do not think that we give adequate protection to young girls. I have come across in my surgery parents of under-age girls involved in liaisons with older men. Those parents find it very difficult to get the police, the statutory services and everyone else to take that seriously as a criminal act. The point that I made was that there is an extra dimension in the case of young men, who take decisions that might put them permanently outside the mainstream way of life. The hon. Lady may disagree with me, but that is my point. I shall now make progress with the rest of my argument.
We must consider not just the possibility of those in a position of trust abusing their position to take advantage of young people as a result of the reduction in the age of consent, but the likelihood of young people being exposed to, and engaging in, homosexual acts at an age at which they are particularly vulnerable. I am surprised at the attitude of Labour Members—and, to some extent, of those on the Benches behind me—which dismisses the issue of vulnerability and the serious issues that arise from the Bill, even to the point of not allowing further examination of the adequacy of the abuse of trust clause. That is extremely serious. Notwithstanding what happened in the other place recently, the House must consider whether it is right and proper to introduce the two measures concurrently. It is very significant that the Government will probably have to apply the Parliament Act to both measures because those in the other place are vastly more in tune with the wishes of parents and with public opinion than are the Government.
What is being proposed today sends the wrong message to our communities, to teachers and to parents. Most of all, it sends entirely the wrong message to the young people of this country.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, not least because the Home Secretary would not allow me to make this point during his speech. Is it not regrettable that although the Home Secretary rightly regards this issue as a matter of conscience for the House, he claims that it is a matter of prejudice when it is debated in the other place?

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, and it is significant that the Home Secretary probably also considers that everybody who disagrees with him on this issue has a bad case of prejudice, instead of realising that there are extremely serious arguments against what is being proposed and that it is our young people who will suffer if those arguments are not fully tested.
The House should particularly consider whether the offence of abuse of trust will be an adequate safeguard. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said on Third Reading in the previous Session, there is widespread concern that the definition of a position of trust may not be broad enough. Regrettably, because the Government are driven by the need to apply

the Parliament Act to the Bill, and because of the procedural motion passed on Monday, there will be no opportunity for hon. Members to examine that proposition further.
In the Bill's explanatory notes, the Government say that they expect the offence will
act more as a deterrent than result in a large number of actual prosecutions.
Is that a hint that the Government will not seek to prosecute in some instances of abuse of trust? The sharpest deterrent of all would be a guarantee of prosecution where trust had been abused.
I would hope that the Home Secretary, having made much of the new offence and having accepted in the previous Session the arguments for increasing the maximum sentence from two to five years, would assure the House that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service will be actively encouraged to prosecute where necessary.
I said that we do not at present accord sufficient protection to young girls. That is very much due to the absence of will to prosecute and to take measures to protect them. I hope that if we pass the Bill, we will not make the same mistake in respect of young boys.
I recognise that the new offence will provide at least some small safeguard, but I doubt that it is adequate. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Home Secretary cannot pay any attention to what I am saying. I am talking to the House, but hoping that he will listen, about the adequacy of the abuse of trust provisions.

Mr. Straw: My reply to the right hon. Lady is that the provisions are adequate, as I sought to explain.

Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman may have been explaining it to his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), but he has not explained it to me and he has not listened to my points.
I remain convinced that it would not be right further to reduce the age of consent for homosexual acts when the Government are intent on repealing section 28. The case for further change has not been made today. Those are my views.

Ms Claire Ward: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No.
Hon. Members must use their individual conscience and judgment. I cannot support the Bill. I know that serious issues are arising for young people. This is not a theoretical debate about equality, but a question of how we best protect vulnerable youngsters and ensure that every young person has protection in law against being encouraged to engage in activity that could lead to permanent exclusion from a mainstream way of life.
I am sorry that that strikes no chord with Labour Members. It strikes an immense chord with the many parents who have written to me or visited me and made representations that they feel there is a rush for political correctness that does not take into account the needs of young people and the realities that they face.

Ann Keen: I am grateful for the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the history behind this legislation, including events in 1994, and in 1998 and 1999, since I have been a Member of the House. We are now in another century. I commend my Government and other colleagues for their support on the crucial issue of the age of consent and equality for young people. I commend my friends on the Opposition Benches who have—bravely, in the present political climate—spoken out on the subject.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) referred at the end of her speech to political correctness. The Opposition seem to regard true political correctness to be intolerance, prejudice and discrimination, and would like that reflected in the law of the land. I have to tell the right hon. Lady that, thankfully, we have become a much more tolerant, progressive society, and will continue to progress. All political parties will continue to strive for greater tolerance.
We are all aware of the bombings that took place last summer in Brixton, Brick lane and, of course, in Soho. None of us could have failed to be shocked, angered and disbelieving that any person could willingly harm members of our community who are considered to be in the minority and different from the norm. We are talking about human beings. We must value all human life equally.
Life was going on that night in Old Compton street. Friends and family—gay and straight—were out for the evening. Some were celebrating a wedding and, sadly, one of the deceased was celebrating the expected birth of a child. They were all enjoying the opportunity to go out and mix on a warm summer night. I know that many colleagues visit those places. I frequently visit all parts of London and enjoy a social life with hon. Friends and, occasionally, colleagues on the Opposition Benches. I often go out with my family and friends. I have referred to a diverse section of society, but it is truly representative of society in this country today.
That bombing sent out Shockwaves that were felt by organisations such as Stonewall. They received comments of sympathy, but of course other comments were voiced in the extreme language that people feel entitled to use when there is any inequality in the law. There were cowards who talked of the pleasure that the bomb had caused them. Sadly, I have personal experience of that because a spineless coward who phones me and leaves messages on my answering machine asked me that day whether I would like to come and collect some arms and legs.
We all come across intolerance. We all have to be brave at times and make sure that our friends, neighbours and colleagues are accepted in our society because they are human beings, they are equal and they give to this country, whether through their job, through their academic work or through the way in which they choose to live their life. The public services that acted so bravely after the Soho bombing and the bombings at Brixton and Brick lane—the police, the fire service, the ambulance service, paramedics and health workers in the hospitals—included both gay and straight members among their staff, all offering their knowledge and expertise in dealing with a tragedy.
I was overwhelmed by the messages that were received, particularly from the Prime Minister and the Queen. Together with the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), I visited Soho square. Many of us attended church services. Many religious organisations came together to say how wrong the act was.
To my friends throughout the House, I say that we cannot tolerate the offensive language used in the Chamber and in the other place, and written in tabloid papers such as the Daily Mail—language that deliberately scares young people and their families. Switchboards and helplines of gay organisations take calls from young people who have been frightened by articles such as those that have appeared in the Daily Mail. We know that to be true.
Like many of my colleagues, I have received in my postbag letters for and against, but the letters of support far outnumber the others. I have heard from people who genuinely did not understand what they opposed. I have had letters from very right-wing "Christian"—the words "Christian" and "right-wing" do not seem to go hand in hand—organisations deliberately distorting the facts of the case and making people afraid. We hon. Members should stand up united and say that we will not tolerate that.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Is she trying to suggest that those of us who oppose the measure with the utmost vehemence that we can command somehow endorse what went on at the Admiral Duncan pub? If that is what she is suggesting, it is an utter disgrace. However strongly we feel about the argument, I know no one who could endorse such activity. It is an outrage.

Ann Keen: However uncomfortable the hon. Gentleman may feel about my remarks—I understand that many people feel uncomfortable having to listen to such remarks—he should recognise that the language sometimes used in the debate, the scaremongering and intolerance of which I have become aware since entering the House, will breed hatred and contempt.

Mr. Howarth: Will the hon. Lady give way again?

Ann Keen: No, I am sorry. I must make progress. Many hon. Members want to speak.
Blackmail is a crime, and blackmailers love any form of inequality before the law. Young people have been blackmailed not to report abuse. The law as it stands would deter any young person from reporting abuse. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) was distressed by my comments about the bombing and about intolerance. I, like many of my hon. Friends and many others outside the House, find it distressing that we are insufficiently concerned about young people being abused. If we vote in favour of equalising the age of consent, the key word for me and many of my hon. Friends is "consent".
During such debates in the House, I have heard some of my colleagues having their personal sex life openly discussed, sometimes with great humour and sometimes causing people to feel uncomfortable. People outside wonder why any adult's sex life should be discussed in


open debate. As a heterosexual woman, I do not recall ever having to explain or justify any of my actions, as long as they were legal and occurred with my consent.
My nursing background helps me to observe and study human behaviour. Some of the human behaviour that I have witnessed can lead me only to the conclusion that some hon. Members and certainly some in the other place get great satisfaction from discussing other people's sex life, using colourful language and distorting the facts. It brings a new dimension to "The Jerry Springer Show" and suggests a new kind of show, in which all sorts of people queue up to confess the things that they like or dislike.
I believe that people's personal sex life is their own, provided that it is conducted with consent. All responsible Members of this House and another place should take that on board.
On the wider topic of health and health care, health is a sense of total well-being—feeling comfortable with oneself, as well as a certain standard of physical health. We know that at least one in six of us suffers from some sort of mental health problem. In our early teens, life is difficult enough. It is pretty difficult sometimes when we are over 50, but not as complicated as it is in our early teens. Young people need the opportunity to be themselves and to discuss who they are.
We do not choose our life style, nor are we taught it. To all those who are worried about section 28, I shall quote from Victoria Coren's "Diary" piece in The Observer on 6 February. I wish the thought had occurred to me, but I must give her the credit. She mentions the fears that if section 28 is repealed, young people will be taught to become homosexuals. I agree with her when she comments:
If that's the case, then why are we a nation of people who can't add or spell when teachers expound the benefits of these every day for 16 … years?
And if 'gay lessons' have some special magic power to stick in the young mind, then for heaven's sake let's make the whole syllabus gay! Gay physics, gay geography, gay maths. We'll all be geniuses.
I definitely go along with that.
Health education is crucial. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) raised the issue of AIDS and HIV. There is indeed a serious rise in the number of cases, and it is occurring in the heterosexual community, which has become complacent.
The all-party group on AIDS supports the lowering and equalising of the age of consent, as do the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, NCH Action for Children, Childline, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Barnardos.
When we want information, we go to the experts. We listen to their advice and read what they have written. Any sensible person makes a judgment on that basis. Why, then, on this issue, cannot we accept the advice of those leading children's and young people's organisations? I should like someone who disagrees to give me an answer. Why do we refuse to accept the advice of bodies such as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Health Education Authority? I ask myself that as a nurse and as a mother.
In my family, I have the greatest gift: I know my son. All hon. Members, regardless of whether they are married or have children, are part of a family. People who oppose the Bill without question offend families in this country. That is so serious that I have to say, along with others, that I am fed up of humility. I do not see the need to beg constantly for this change to be made or to say that we will listen to this or consider that.
The Bill is about equality; it is about human beings; it is about our families. To use a famous phrase, enough is enough. It is about time that the House and the country said that there has been enough intolerance of something about which some people know little, because that intolerance affects people's lives. This is a new century, and this Government will bring us to a new age and a new tolerance.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) has done on this issue—not only today but since she has been a Member of the House. I also pay tribute, without reservation, to the work of Mrs. Edwina Currie, who is no longer a Member of the House. She introduced the prospect of change to us in 1994, and it is a tribute to the system that Back Benchers can still put issues on the Front-Bench agenda.
I shall be brief as many Members want to speak. We have three issues before us. Should we equalise the age of consent? Should we remove the stigma of criminality from under-16s who become involved in sexual activity? Should we have a law to deal with the abuse of a position of trust? My colleagues and I support each of those propositions.
At both elections since the creation of the Liberal Democrats in 1988, our party has stood on a manifesto of equality on the age of consent. For us, that has been a self-evident consequence of arguing for an equal society. We have always agreed that colleagues in the House should be free to vote as they choose, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—who did my job for the past five years—personally supported such legislation, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), our then leader. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), our new leader, and I support the Bill.
I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth about the most important of the Bill's provisions. It is time to move on, and we must conclude that there should be equality for sexual relationships—at 16 in Great Britain and 17 in Northern Ireland, for other reasons. There would thus be equality in both places.
It is important to remember that the proposal is on the agenda partly as a result of events in the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court. The European convention on human rights has also played a part. I refer colleagues to the helpful and succinct House of Commons research paper on this subject and remind them of how we reached this position through the European Court.
In 1994, Euan Sutherland—who lived with his family in Southwark, my borough—brought a complaint to the Commission, arguing that Britain had failed him twice in terms of his rights. As the research paper states, article 8 of the European convention on human rights
grants everyone the right to respect for
their private and family life, their home and their correspondence. Article 14 states that
the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground".
It listed all the grounds that had been identified.
The then Government said that it should be possible for Britain to argue that we were entitled to have 18 as the age of consent for gay relationships, but 16 for the rest. The Commission ruled by 14 votes to four that there had been a violation. It had listened to the Government's argument, but did not accept it. As the recommendations of the court were likely to result in a similar judgment, the Government wisely accepted that they should put before Parliament the proposition that the age of consent should be equalised. It seems to me to be beyond argument that under European law, and therefore under law that we are bound to follow, there has be to equality. Although there are many reasons for passing the Bill, we should pass it for that one, if no other.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: How much of the House's sovereignty is the hon. Gentleman prepared to surrender to such organisations as the European Court of Human Rights or to the European convention on human rights? Is there no limit? Is he prepared to hand over all decision making on those issues to foreign bodies?

Mr. Hughes: I do not want to be distracted down that road, but I shall try to deal with the point succinctly. This country signed up to the European convention 50 years ago. It was drafted by a member of the hon. Gentleman's party. It is effectively a British document in conception.

Mr. John Townend: Yes, but it has changed.

Mr. Hughes: The convention has not been changed on this issue; the two articles with which we are concerned are from the original. Governments of both parties have adhered to it and my party has always supported it. I do not believe that it is good for national Governments to think that they always get it right without anybody else adjudicating. Establishing the convention after the war was a far-sighted move and a great tribute to the Council of Europe. It has been good for Britain in many ways and has given people many rights.

Mr. William Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: Once more, then I must make progress.

Mr. Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the convention was established and when there was talk of equality, it was never in the minds of those who drew up the document that it would be interpreted as widely as it is now?

Mr. Hughes: I do not think that that is true on this particular point. When the convention was drawn up

people had ideas about equality in family life and on gender, sex and race matters that obviously led them to conclude that people should be treated equally. I was born in the year in which the convention was signed, but I am sure that gay people in the first half of the century would have expected that their time would soon come and that they would be given equal status under legislation such as this.

Mr. Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I shall not give way again. I am trying to enable all colleagues to speak.
I want to own up. I tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that would not have failed to achieve equality, but would have achieved it for 17-year-olds. However, the House disagreed with it and I accepted that. I must tell the House the most persuasive argument, which was that made by Euan Sutherland. He came to see me as a Southwark resident and was supported by his family and a couple of friends. They said that, as young men, the issue was not how they were protected or what they did, but whether they were treated equally at all stages. If society would not treat them equally, how could it expect them to receive equal treatment from their peers? If the law did not treat them respectfully, how could society ask other people to do the same? Euan Sutherland—and also someone who once worked for me—put the case most convincingly. Those young people said, "This prejudices and discriminates against us." We need to move on.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said that she is not prepared to see equality override protection, but the Bill would not do that. We must enshrine equality in the law and then we can work on the protection. Colleagues, particularly on the Tory Benches, may still be thinking of opposing the Bill. I say this to them: in Britain, criminality is not attached to female-female relationships and never has been; nor is criminality attached to male-female relationships at 16, which is the same age at which people are allowed to leave school, go to work, pay taxes, join the services, get married and have children—

Mrs. Gorman: And get AIDS.

Mr. Hughes: And, as the hon. Lady said, be vulnerable to sexual diseases, no matter through what activity. From that age, people are treated in one way if they happen, permanently or impermanently, to have a male-female relationship, but differently if they are two men in a relationship. That is not logical. If we could get away from justifying inequality to considering the more sensible point made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) about how to protect young people from abuse, we would do the country a service.
One cannot tell gay people, who, according to any projection are likely to be a minority of the community, that they are valued as equals if the law does not treat them as such. We cannot get away with that. It is like telling people with physical or mental disabilities, or women or men or black or Asian people, "You're equal, we value you lots, we love you, but we're not going to treat you equally." We simply cannot do that. If we cannot move forward in Britain in 2000, we are in big trouble.
Clause 2 is straightforward. Thanks to the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and others in Standing Committee, we have decided not to criminalise under-16s. It is no good to anybody to say that a sexual activity engaged in at school renders someone a criminal. It is fine to deal with adults' abuse of young people, but let us not criminalise under-16s. Let us consider someone who is under 16 and goes through a passing homosexual phase at school and is criminalised for that. That blot remains on the record for ever. To criminalise someone for that is not the response of an adult, mature society.
Let us consider abuse of trust, which the Minister tackled the other day when he replied to the short debate about procedure. I hope that the other place will have an opportunity to consider the details of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) will say if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I hope she will, we are worried about some aspects of the drafting. Those anxieties are shared outside the House. The House has considered the measure, and I hope that the other place has an opportunity to examine it. We are considering a difficult measure which deals with the exploitation of younger people by older people. I hope that we can spend time on it to ensure that we get it right.
I am a Christian and a member of the Church. I come from an evangelical church background. I say to those who try to place an interpretation of faith on their views that there is a great difference between arguing that the Gospel, the Koran or the teachings of Guru Nanak say that someone should lead a particular life style or behave in a specific manner and legislating to make it illegal not to behave in that way. If the Church is to be all embracing, and faiths are to win people, not lose them, they must accept people as they are. They should try to win them by argument, not legislation. I hope that the division and difficulty that the Church has experienced on life style can be removed. The way in which people live, their moral choices and their behaviour are matters of morality, faith and conviction, but not legislation. Legislating on such matters is not for us in this multicultural, multi-community age.
The Bill is about private acts. We must not introduce into our discussions matters that are nothing to do with the Bill. We should have a review of sexual offences—I hope that the Minister and the Department are making good progress. The law is a muddle. I say that as someone who used to practise in the criminal courts. It is all over the place. Much of it dates from many years ago. It contains may inconsistencies, illogicalities and anomalies. The sooner the general review is before Parliament for careful consideration, the better. It should address the differences in the way people are treated. It should improve the law on indecent activity in public places. That does not work at the moment. We must not include in our discussions the debate about clause 28. That is a separate debate, which is not about the rights of our citizens, but about what our public institutions do.
I beg hon. Members to put aside extraneous matters and issues that involve our personal convictions and our faith and, to borrow a phrase from someone much more famous than me—[Interruption.] He is much, much more famous than me. I sense that at the moment,
There is a tide in the affairs of men

and women. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, the Bill will lead us towards a more tolerant, less bigoted society in which all people, after centuries of struggle, will at last be treated as equals. The measure is a small step in that direction. Please let us not put up barriers of bigotry now; let us move on to a more enabling and refreshing agenda.

Lorna Fitzsimons: It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak in this debate. Many colleagues have provided eloquent testimony to their long-held views and passionate beliefs in the rightness of what we are doing. The Bill is testament to the sort of society we want to live in and the sort of people we want to be. We must remember that this place is an advert to the rest of the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) said, our language and tolerance is used by the general public as a method of judging what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. We have to lead by example. If we do not have laws that ensure that we treat people equally and accept that everyone is equal, we are going round in circles on one leg.
It was interesting and sad to listen to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). She talked about permanent exclusion. Anyone who has worked with or near children who are approaching the time in their lives when they question their sexuality, ask questions and make discoveries knows that exploring those matters under the cloud of knowing that they are involved in an illegal act leads to exclusion. I can think of no better definition of permanently excluding someone from society. The message is loud and clear: society does not recognise their right to exist, and the act that they want to practise is illegal, not because they are gay but because of their age. As soon as they become a certain age, the act becomes legal.
I find it offensive that young girls are treated differently. We should provide protection for all our children, regardless of age or sexuality. One does not say to a child, "Are you gay? All right, I'll protect you." Every child deserves protection in law and in society generally. Being a member of society means looking out for children. One does not look for the tag on a child's head; one looks to protect them. The premise that a gay young boy between the age of 16 and 18 needs more protection than a young girl of the same age is nonsense. Anyone who claims that has not listened to any teenage girls. I am about to become a stepmother of a 12-year-old girl, and we cannot avoid young girls' questions and their sexuality. They cannot avoid their sexuality—they have hormones popping everywhere. It is naive in the extreme to say that young people have to hide their sexuality in a discreet closet because it does not exist.
Another point has been eloquently made. To pretend that the change would undermine the family is outrageous. Excluding people means excluding family members— brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunties, uncles, sons and daughters. Do some people think that gay people do not have families? It is offensive to say that, all of a sudden, it is a chattering-class issue or a right-on issue, that it is not a core issue.
It was interesting to see a little snippet on BBC news this morning. It had done a vox pop in Newcastle upon Tyne, Central—not exactly a trendy, cafe latte-type place.


The question was, "Is it just the chattering classes? Are they not concentrating on bread and butter issues and on what you want as working class people?" Interestingly, woman after woman said, "No. It is a core principle about the type of society that we want to live in and the type of people we want to be. We have to ensure that all our children are protected and are treated equally." That did not come from me or anyone here—it came from ordinary working-class women in the constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne, Central. We have to recognise that.
I have had the most heart-rending personal letters from young men who have never declared their sexuality to anyone because they were too scared; I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member here to have received such letters. Are we not humbled by the courageous way in which they are coming out and touching us as Members of Parliament by writing to us? Sometimes, we are the first person with whom they have shared that experience because of the law as it stands. Sometimes, they do not have the courage to go to their family because of their perception of how the family will deal with it. Often that is unfair because families can be very supportive—although sometimes they are not, as we know from our surgeries—but we cannot let down those constituents.
To say that there are no gay people in Rochdale is naive. To say that there are no young people asking real questions about their sexuality, who want help and to be able freely to ask and to get information, is wrong. How can they freely question something when it is illegal and there is total fear? That is at the core of the child protection issue. Surely, if something is made illegal—we all know this from all the case law—it will go underground. People do not report crimes, and they are preyed on and blackmailed. The bottom line is that keeping this law is the best way to continue the abuse of children by people who allegedly care for them.
If we take child abuse seriously, we will ensure that everyone inside and outside this place knows that, in the eyes of the law, at the age of 16, people are all equal. We are all worthy of the same protection in law. We must ensure that we send that message collectively to everyone who uses the law to exercise bigotry because of their own fear, vulnerabilities or standing in life. The bottom line is that we advance nothing that the great British parliamentary tradition has held dear by continuing to have this law.
As for the intervention by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), I find it absolutely and utterly astounding that, in a place that is meant to be so learned, we still have bigotry based on ignorance. The facts are clear; they have been published in the House of Commons Library research paper and have been eloquently referred to. There is a rise in the incidence of AIDS in the heterosexual community. Anyone who is naive enough to believe that sexual practices in the homosexual community are the only ones that lead to sexual and other diseases has not been to a sex education class in any school recently.

Mrs. Gorman: I, too, am quoting from statistics produced by the Public Health Laboratory Service. Dr. Nicoll points out that of the currently diagnosed cases among heterosexuals in this country, only 6 per cent.—62 of the individuals concerned—have contracted that dreadful disease in this country. The great majority of people are from the sub-continent of Africa. The disease

there is pandemic. We all know that, but the impression given by the publicity is that the disease is growing among the indigenous population in this country—the heterosexual population—and that is not true.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I cautiously say that I am sure that I misunderstood the hon. Lady when she said that it was an imported epidemic from Africa. The fact is that it is growing in the heterosexual community throughout the world. We are an international community—everyone travels.
The bottom line is that when people continue to perpetrate the myth that it is a gay plague, they allow every person who is heterosexual and about to embark on their first heterosexual experience to think that it is all right not to practise safe sex. Sadly, that is one of the reasons why people are naively led into unsafe sexual practices which lead to the rise in the AIDS epidemic. Can we therefore at least recognise one principle and fact in this Chamber—namely, that we are all prey to diseases when we practise unsafe sex and that it has nothing to do with sexuality?

Ms Oona King: Does my hon. Friend agree that ignorance comes not just from hon. Members? A leader in the Daily Mail the week before last said that one of the reasons for keeping section 28 was because, otherwise, young people might not be taught that marriage helps to protect them from AIDS. That is not just ignorant; it is criminal and dangerous to encourage children down that route.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I would be interested to find out from the statistics how many married people have AIDS. The truth is that we need to expound the myth. More heterosexuals than homosexuals have AIDS. The bottom line is that it is a disease that affects us all, so we should stop scapegoating. I thought that we had got rid of that idea a decade ago; I genuinely did. I am shocked to hear it raised in the Chamber.
I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) raised with him. I want to make it clear that it is not, as it appeared from the Home Secretary's response, about repealing the conviction retrospectively, which no one—including, I understand, the Bolton Seven—is asking for. The point is that, because of the law as it stands now, they are on the sexual offences register. If the Bill is enacted, as I hope it will be, they will be on the register for something that is no longer illegal— consenting sex with a 17-year-old. Therefore, we ask for a review of people on the register because of the unequal age of consent. The issue is purely about those who have entered consensual sexual practices.

Mr. David Borrow: Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to separate the punishment for the crime, which is the sentence meted out by the court, from a measure that is meant to safeguard the public, which is what the register of sexual offences is for? There is some confusion in the Home Office about what the punishment is and what the public protection is.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I agree. I thank my hon. Friend for putting it so clearly. We all share those concerns about


protection. That is why we have considered the matter and why it is part of the Bill, but there is some confusion. I would like us to consider that a bit more closely.
The bottom line is that in this day and age—in the new millennium—we want to be able to be tolerant. For all of us who are parents, whether step-parents or natural parents, and for anyone who is involved in teaching children, the greatest fear is that children will not go to their parents, a teacher or a responsible person with their questions. If we continue to maintain the current inequality, that will happen. We know that there are thousands and thousands and thousands of children who have many questions which they are just holding within themselves. I cannot think of a sadder and more dangerous society for our children to live in.

Mr. John Bercow: I have changed my mind on this subject, and I owe it to myself, the House and my constituents to explain why. The words "I was wrong" do not readily trip off my tongue, but that is what I believe. I think I was mistaken to vote for the status quo last time, and I intend to vote for the Bill, for reform and, I think, for progress.
But before I explain to the House my thinking—and I hope that the House will be tolerant of my doing so—I should like to pick up on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—who, sadly, is not in her place— said in opening from the Opposition Front Bench. I greatly regret that she chose to establish a linkage between section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 and this Bill. I say what follows not to break what consensus has already emerged in the debate or cause any offence. I recognise that some hon. Members feel strongly that section 28 should be removed. I believe that they are mistaken. I believe that we are right to support it. It has a valuable effect, and it would be a mistake to dispense with it. That is a matter for legitimate debate and argument, but it is wrong to link the two and imply that one must take the same line on both issues. There is no requirement whatsoever to do so.
I should also like to make it clear that, as I think the House will understand, regarding my right hon. Friend's references to political correctness, I have in no sense fallen prey to it. I abhor political correctness. I could not give a tinker's cuss as to the view of the European Court of Human Rights, and I view both the persona and the activities of Mr. Peter Tatchell with repugnance. So I hope that I shall be acquitted of the charge that I am in some sense a fellow traveller of the organisation OutRage!
On the contrary, I have just reflected upon the issues. It so happens that I am heterosexual, but I acknowledge a point that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) made in her speech and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) made in her powerful contribution, which is that I have homosexual constituents as well. The idea that they exist in every other constituency, but not in that of Buckingham, is preposterous. I have a proportion of homosexual constituents. They are human beings; they are civilised; they have rights and obligations as well. And I am duty bound to take account of their interests.
In essence, there are three main reasons why I feel impelled to vote tonight for change.
First, the status quo provides discrimination without benefit. I am not opposed to discrimination per se in the way in which I live my life. [Laughter] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) laughs. I shall try to explain what I mean. A discriminating person is somebody who exercises judgment, discretion and, not infrequently, wisdom. But it is a very different matter to have a statutory discrimination without benefit.
I listened intently, interestedly and respectfully to my right hon. Friend speaking from the Front Bench, but it was not at all clear to me what was the benefit that flowed and flows from the status quo. There is no evidence that the present law reduces the incidence of homosexual activity, minimises the spread of infection and increases the protection available to young people. None of these things is achieved by the present law. It seems to me that it has no beneficial purpose at all.
Indeed, the argument is stronger than merely that the present law has no beneficial purpose or effect. It is that many young people, possibly uncertain about their sexuality, or possibly knowing that they are homosexual, are discouraged by their being currently criminalised in law from seeking appropriate health advice from those in a position to provide it. It cannot be right that we simply ignore that fact.
The effect of present arrangements is that the statute book delivers a recipe for confusion, misery and fear. The onus of responsibility is on those who are defending the status quo to explain what benefits it confers upon us and what demerits would result from the Bill. My right hon. Friend's speech, I regret to say, failed to explain that.
The second argument in support of change is powerful, but one that some right hon. and hon. Members might think it curious to hear from me. I refer to the position in continental Europe. I yield to no one in my Euro-scepticism. As my right hon. and hon. Friends know, and as I have already made clear, I could not care less what the European Court of Human Rights thinks about this subject. But it would be absurd to ignore what happens in other countries, and the fact is that in Denmark, France, Greece, Poland and Sweden there is an equal age of consent, which happens to be 15. The House will be aware that in Germany the equal age of consent is now 16.
I challenge those who support the status quo and inveigh so violently against this relatively modest reform to prove that some damaging consequence flows from the different arrangements in those countries. If they could show that the incidence of homosexual activity was greater, that the spread of infection was bigger, that the protection for young people was weaker, they would have the kernel of an argument. They have not been able, at least to my satisfaction, to demonstrate anything of the kind. The position is no worse in those countries, as far as I can discern. Indeed, arguably the position in many other countries is far better than it is here.
Everyone in the House knows this country's record on teenage pregnancies, for example. It is an abominable record, a shameful record, a record that we should be doing our level best to improve. There is nothing to suggest that the existing law will achieve that.
The third argument against the status quo and in favour of change, which I had heard before, but which I had not previously allowed to persuade me, is that experts in medical charities and children's charities alike, and throughout the medical profession, counsel that we should make this change. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred to that wide-ranging consensus for change. It is important to recall once again the range of organisations that support reform: the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; Barnardos; NCH Action for Children; the National Children's Bureau; Save the Children; the Family Welfare Association; the Family Planning Association; the Health Education Authority; the British Medical Association; the National Association of Probation Officers; the British Association of Social Workers; the Royal College of Physicians; the Royal College of Nursing; and so on. If I have omitted to mention an important organisation, no doubt a right hon. or hon. Member will point that out.

Dr. Evan Harris: The Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Bercow: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, who intervened from a sedentary position, for not including the Liberal Democrats in the category of important organisations, but I am very happy to accept that he is a long-standing supporter of reform.
I counted no fewer than 13 organisations in my list. All of them believe that positive health benefits could flow from a change in the law, and that seems a good reason to consider making it.
I do not want to detain the House for much longer, because I am very conscious, first, that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, and, secondly, of the substantial expertise on all sides of the House on this subject; expertise with which I do not pretend to compete. But I would make some concluding points.
First, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends occasionally give the impression that they are in favour only of homosexual activity between consenting males of 99 years of age, with the consent of both parents. That does not seem to me to be justified. I believe in tolerance. I believe in equality before the law. I also believe in freedom under the law, and it is with the concept of freedom, as well as with that of equality, that we are in this debate, I hope, concerned.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend not appreciate the real risk that young, impressionable boys who are somewhat doubtful about their sexuality will be pressurised into adopting a course that they will regret later? Does he not accept that Parliament has a role to play in the protection of young people?

Mr. Bercow: I certainly believe that it is important for Parliament to protect people.
I once bought into my hon. Friend's argument, but since then I have been reading, I have been listening, and I have been conversing with people who know something about the subject, in my constituency and elsewhere. Now, I simply do not think that the argument is valid. There have been a plethora of studies, in this country and overseas, and the general conclusion seems to be that an individual is unlikely, as a result of an experience in his

youth, to be propelled into a homosexual existence that would not otherwise have occurred. The Howard League for Penal Reform produced one of the most recent and penetrating reports on the subject, in 1985. I found it very persuasive.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) made a good point about the duty of Parliament to protect young people in all circumstances. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) think that making a young person a criminal will protect him in any way?

Mr. Bercow: Certainly not. I agree with my hon. Friend, whom I have heard expatiate on the subject before, that that is a recipe for misery and fear.

Mr. Duncan: It is counter-productive.

Mr. Bercow: It is indeed.
I am very conscious that, in speaking as I have done and in voting as I intend to do, I am almost certain to incur the wrath of many of the people whom I admire most in politics, and that I will be accompanied in the Lobby by some—not all—of the people whom I respect least in politics. However, I have a duty in this regard.

Ms Ward: The hon. Gentleman may have those fears, but I am sure I speak for many Labour Members when I say that, following what he has said so far, we shall look on him in an entirely new light. We only hope that he will not do this too often; if he does, we shall feel most uncomfortable in the future.

Mr. Bercow: I accept the hon. Lady's tribute in the spirit in which it was offered, but I hope that she will not overdo it. No doubt I have already inflicted massive political damage on myself, and I do not want to add to it.
Like other Members, I have received many letters on this subject—not many in the run-up to today's debate, but many over the past couple of years. Those letters expressed a variety of views. I will not assert that the majority favoured change; they probably did not, and certainly a majority of Conservative supporters were against it. However, I believe that if we spend years trying to get into this place, once we are here we should say what we think and vote with our conscience. For that reason, and on the basis of a conversion on my part because of the evidence, I will support the Bill's Second Reading.

Mr. Bill Etherington: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and his last words were particularly near and dear to me. I congratulate him on being humble enough to admit that he was wrong, and suggest that he should hang on to a copy of tomorrow's Hansard, which may well become a collector's item in years to come.
It is nice when someone introduces some levity to the Chamber—heaven knows, it is badly needed on occasion—but we are discussing a serious matter. I disagree with the hon. Member for Buckingham on one point: I feel that section 28 is linked with this debate.


I say that because the Home Secretary's speech—not so much the content as the tone, which was based on humanity and compassion—was also near and dear to me.
Many of us, unlike the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), were born in the early part of the last century. I cannot recall homosexuality being discussed in my home during my childhood, or in the various schools that I attended. Only as a teenage apprentice did I become aware of it. I did not have a sheltered upbringing; in fact, I grew up in rather a rough area.
When something is sprung on a person, that person will have difficulties. I was not a politician in those days; I was just like any other teenager, trying to learn and to find my way through a difficult time. I must be honest, and admit that I initially felt some distaste about homosexuality. My subsequent feelings, however, were perhaps more important. I had a sense almost of pity, of compassion, and, I hope, of understanding in relation to someone who did not belong to the flock—someone who was an outsider.
I must say in all honesty that I do not think I have met half a dozen homosexuals in my life, although I have read a lot about them and have heard people speak about the subject.

Ms Oona King: There are half a dozen on these Benches.

Mr. Etherington: I should be grateful if my hon. Friends would give me a count. It is good to get a bit of information.
One of the most poignant experiences that I have encountered was that of a couple with whom I became friendly when they were young. In their later days, they discovered that one of their children had homosexual tendencies. They were horrified, and found it difficult to cope. I felt immensely sympathetic. Like all decent parents, those people loved their child very much, and this was a big blow.
We have moved on tremendously in recent years, but we have not moved far enough. I pay tribute to the Government for noting the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to abolish discrimination against homosexuals in the armed forces: that was a big step forward. If this Bill is passed, that too will be a big step forward. In many ways, this issue is like the long march of Everyman: it goes on, and we hope that it gets better.
Unlike the contender for Back Bencher of the year, the hon. Member for Buckingham, I do give a tinker's cuss about Europe, and about the various organisations to which we have voluntarily signed up and in regard to which we have responsibilities and obligations. If I have a slight criticism of my Government in relation to the issue we are debating, it is this. The European Court of Justice made a decision about discrimination against those with a different sexual orientation in the armed forces. If we could put a three-line Whip on that, and if Government policy was to try to get it through, why have we suddenly returned to a free Vote when the European Court has made a decision that has led to today's debate? I do not see the logic: I do not understand the difference between the position today and the position just after the Christmas recess.
I have spoken about subjects involving homosexuality during the plenary session of the Council of Europe, and I belong to the committee on equal opportunities for men and women. The committee strongly agrees that heterosexuals are treated very differently from homosexuals by many nations. Britain has a pretty good record, and we are respected in Europe, not least because of the recent decision about the armed services. However, we can still learn from other people and countries, and we still have some way to go.
I am fairly confident—I speak with some authority on this—that my Government do not believe that sexual orientation should be allowed to be a consideration in employment decisions. In employment, one's sexual orientation and sex should not matter, everyone should be treated equally and there should be no discrimination.
Recently, the issue was discussed at the Council of Europe, where I spoke on it for the Socialist group. An amendment was also passed to the new protocol 12, specifically including sexual orientation as an unlawful consideration in employment decisions. However, I was amazed to discover that, in the brief from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Government opposed the amendment. Their opposition did not fit in with what I have been led to believe in this place. Although I am sure that some other hon. Members have had similar experiences on other issues, the Government's opposition to that amendment did not send out the correct signals.
The House of Lords' regrettable decision on section 28 did not send out the right signals to our European partners. I appreciate why no amendments are being tabled to the Bill. If the Parliament Act 1911 is to be invoked, it is essential that the Bill not be amended. Passing the Bill is the only way in which we will be able to comply with a ruling in law that we have signed up to abide by.
When the Government introduce Bills to bring us into line with European legislation or judgments from the European Court of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice, the House of Lords are able to thwart those efforts. If we are going to comply with our obligations, we will therefore have to examine very closely the House of Lords' powers. The other place could cause the Government and every British citizen to be in breach of our European and international obligations.
I have therefore reached a conclusion that has nothing to do with this debate: if the House of Lords could put us in such a situation, perhaps, when we are considering reforming the House of Lords, we should consider abolishing it. If we do not, democracy will not prevail, and the elected representatives of the United Kingdom will be thwarted in performing their responsibilities.

Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Etherington: I will not, because I have only two or three minutes.
I am very pleased that the Bill will be passed today. Some time ago, I voted to lower the age of consent from 21 to 16 but it became 18 and it is long overdue that we equalised the age of consent. It has been inexcusable that certain backwoodsmen have been able to hold up progress, but democracy and the rule of law will ensure that religious beliefs—which, in many ways, is what this debate is about—cannot be used as an excuse for failing to live by the law of the land. We want to progress equality for homosexuals of both sexes.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who made great play of the importance to him of his constituents in Buckingham, and perhaps particularly of those of a homosexual persuasion. I put it to him and to the House that we come to this place not only to exercise our own conscience, but to represent the views of those who elected us—our constituents.
I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the great majority of his constituents, and of mine, have strong misgivings about not only this legislation, but the Government's intention to repeal section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. We have an obligation—often in the face of Labour Members' criticisms, which are not always particularly well-balanced or rational—to express the views of those constituents. Majorities, like minorities, have a right to hold and express their views. I am speaking partly on behalf of that majority today.
I, like everyone else, do not seek to criminalise young people in any context whatever. However, we should remember that the number of prosecutions of young people in the 16-to-18 age group for anything related to homosexuality is minute. I think that, in the past several years, there have been only two such prosecutions. Therefore, we are talking not about people hunting down 16-year-olds to prosecute, but about the concerns of the parents of those children.
As hon. Members have said, some of those parents may very much favour changing current legislation, but some do not favour it. As some of my colleagues have said, the children of some of those parents may be in education or in care institutions. Although I welcome the fact that young people in care will receive special protection in the Bill, young people who are not in care—such as those in schools and other activities, such as swimming clubs and military groups—will not be protected by the Bill. Those young people may be subject to pressures that induce them to become involved in various activities.
As we know, some young people, including boys, become prostitutes. In many cases, those young people may well be led into such practices for money, or even simply for a type of affection, rather than as the result of an automatic predilection, be it biological or otherwise.

Ms Oona King: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gorman: No, I shall not give way now. I want to make some progress. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be able to speak and tell us her views.
I am particularly concerned—I have raised this issue in the House before—about the health aspects of the matter. In the United Kingdom, we are bombarded with propaganda on the health risks to young people caused by smoking, drinking and drug taking. However, if we mention the health risks involved in homosexual activities, we are shouted down and told that we are bigoted or prejudiced or, in many cases, completely wrong.
I should like again to quote the chief executive of the Public Health Laboratory Service, Dr. Nicholl, who states in a report:
The risk of contracting Aids is vastly greater in homosexual people than in heterosexuals.

The report also stated that, last year, of the 1,070 heterosexual people living in Britain who contracted human immune deficiency virus—many of whom underwent HIV testing because of increased concern among women about the disease—only 62 contracted the disease in this country. When I pointed out to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) that the great majority of the women in that group came from the sub-continent, she jumped on the statement and said that it simply showed that heterosexual populations in other countries are severely affected by the disease.
The fact remains that, in some of those countries, particularly African countries—it has been a feature also in post-communist Romania—the incidence of HIV-AIDS among the female population is related to the use of anal intercourse as a form of contraception. That fact has been medically documented. Therefore, the issue of what happens in some cases of homosexuality between consenting male adults—an issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), whose comments were subsequently sedentarily described by Labour Members as bigotry—is relevant to the debate. We should put that on the record because it is highly significant.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am listening to the hon. Lady with as much dispassionate intensity as I can muster. I am concerned about her line of argument. She is talking about public health issues, which affect heterosexual as much as homosexual people. Does she accept that the logical implication of her argument is that the age of consent should be raised for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals? Will she acknowledge that the gay community and homosexual organisations have done at least as much as other organisations to alert people to the public health issues that she is talking about?

Mrs. Gorman: I agree with some of what the hon. Gentleman says, but not all of it. I do not want to get into a debate with him because we have a short time available and I want to put my point of view.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend and I have been friends for 15 years and I am sure that we are not going to fall out over this issue. Is not the weakness of her argument that it is based on the premise that the proposed change in the law will somehow result in a dramatic explosion of homosexual activity? That premise is fundamentally flawed. Why does she think that the advice of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians on the pursuit of good health is wrong and that she is right?

Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend ignores the fact, which I have already pointed out, that in the past few decades we have had an explosion of HIV-AIDS—a disease that was practically unknown before the more liberal attitude to homosexuality was adopted in this country. We have to some extent managed to conquer that problem, thanks to more advanced medical techniques, but that does not alter the causal relationship. When we tell young children


about health risks, the diseases related to some forms of homosexual practices should be brought to their attention. This is a health issue rather than a moral issue.

Mr. Borrow: rose—

Mr. Stephen Twigg: rose—

Mrs. Gorman: I shall not give way, because all hon. Members have an opportunity to make their own contribution and I do not want to detain the House for too long.
We should keep the issue in proportion by bearing in mind the number of people of a homosexual persuasion in the country. Those listening to our debates might get the impression that we are dealing with a massive problem involving large numbers of people who should receive a lot of attention. The report of the national survey of sexual attitudes and life styles shows that around 1 per cent. of the male population are of homosexual persuasion. That is some 300,000 people, which means that there are about 30,000 males of the relevant age group. It is not the case that every school has half a dozen or more boys who are being bullied because they are homosexual or are at risk of being enticed by older males into homosexual practices. For that reason if for no other, the attention that we are giving to the need to lower the age of consent is out of all proportion with the problem.

Jackie Ballard: Does the hon. Lady agree that, no matter what the size—whether it is 1 per cent., 10 per cent, or 49 per cent.—one of the first duties of this place is to protect the rights of minorities?

Mrs. Gorman: I agree with that, but another important purpose of being in this place is to present the views of the majority. The majority on this issue, as in the debate on section 28, is almost ignored, partly because the membership of the House of Commons is not representative of the population on the issue. We have a much higher percentage of people of homosexual persuasion in the House than in the population at large. That tends to drive the debate in a direction that reflects the personal considerations of some Members rather than the attitudes of the population as a whole.

Ann Keen: How will the majority be affected by the Bill? How will they feel and what difference will it make to them?

Mrs. Gorman: The views of parents of boys aged 16 to 18 and their concerns about their children should be reflected in our debates. Some will agree and some will disagree, but the majority of parents feel concern. The number of children at risk is relatively small. For that reason alone, we do not need to alter existing legislation against the wishes of the great majority of the people whom we represent. We are bombarded by propaganda in this country and sometimes we are led to believe that there is a regime of persecution of our young people on the issue. That is a great exaggeration. There is no evidence that existing legislation needs to be changed. The change will cause great concern to many parents. We have a duty to represent their views and consider whether we need to

alter the law. The amount of persecution going on is so slight that it could be dealt with by the current law, which does not discriminate badly against young male homosexuals. That is demonstrated by the number of convictions. I shall sit down now so that others can participate in the debate.

Kali Mountford: I feel privileged to listen to the debate. My parents brought me up to know people from many walks of life and religions. I owe my mother a debt of gratitude for the fact that I am not inflicted with any disability of mind that might make certain people repulsive or repugnant to me. As we shall have a free vote on the issue, I have examined my conscience closely to work out why I feel the way I do and why I believe that my vote will be morally right and justified.
I have considered the great figures of history whom the rest of us aspire to be like to see from whom I could draw an example. A line comes to mind from Martin Luther King when he was considering the position of his children. He was talking about the future of people of different ethnic backgrounds, but his comment that we should judge people by the content of their heart applies in this debate. It is the content of a person's heart that appeals to me, not the state of their being. We can judge people only by actions over which they have control. We cannot, in all justice and conscience, make a judgment that criminalises someone for a state of existence that is simply themselves, because if we do that we deny them. This debate is not just about equality before the law; it is about humanity, which is the very purpose of a legislative Chamber. If the House is not concerned with humanity, what are we here for? We have to consider the law, and its sense and purpose.
One purpose claimed for the law as it stands is that it provides protection. What sort of protection do we seek for our children? Do we seek to protect them from their own sexuality? Is that even possible? The European Commission has stated:
Sexual orientation is fixed in both sexes at the age of 16.
It continued:
Men aged 16 to 21 are not in need of special protection because of a risk of being 'recruited' into homosexuality.
I absolutely agree.
I firmly believe that our sexuality is as much a part of our being as whether we have curly hair, green eyes or white or brown skin. Therefore, homosexuality should not be an issue for a debate about equality. We should simply accept each other as we are. There is nothing for people to be protected from, because we should not need to be protected from our own existence.
What other protection might we seek for people? We could seek protection for them from older people making sexual advances against their consent. In that case, the law clearly discriminates, because men and women are treated differently. The BMA has said:
The risk posed by predatory older men would appear to be as serious whether the victim is a man or a woman and does not justify a differential age of consent.
The argument is that young men aged between 16 and 18 are more vulnerable than young women of that age. That is a preposterous argument. Young women, if they


experience unwanted sexual activity—or sexual activity they have consented to that is unwise and leads to pregnancy or disease—face at least the same dangers as a young man. Young women also face the risk of pregnancy, which can be grave indeed at that age. I do not propose that we change the age of consent for young women, because it would be ludicrous to deny the fact that young people engage in sexual activity—which anyway would be impossible to police. If we are providing protection for young women at the age of 16, why should there be a difference for young men? I have seen no evidence that makes me believe that young men are more vulnerable.
It has been suggested that protection is needed on health grounds, but the first protection is information. If people are not informed about where their sexual activity may lead them, what hope do they have of protecting their own health? I do not know what is so complicated or advanced about condoms. They have been around for a long time and served a useful purpose. They protect people, whatever their age, against the unwanted consequences of sexual activity. Their primary purpose is obviously protection against pregnancy, but they also protect against sexually transmitted diseases for both men and women. Why should we differentiate between people of different sexes when there is nothing very complicated about the use of a condom? They are not a new idea, and their use should be discussed more widely in schools, youth clubs and wherever people who need such information to protect themselves gather together. There is nothing new in that.
The NSPCC, which is a respected organisation, supports the equalisation of the age of consent because
continuing discrimination in the law against homosexuals stigmatises young people growing up gay. It hinders them from developing a positive self-image and prevents them from seeking information and help in coming to terms with their sexuality.
We know that the current situation provides a platform for homophobic bullying. If there is any risk to health, it is in the law as it stands, which means that people do not have information with which to protect their bodies and are not supported in protecting their mental and emotional development.
The current law leaves people open to abuse. If an older man seeks to have a sexual relationship with a younger man aged 16 to 17, both parties are in breach.of the law. If the young man has not consented, he cannot put himself forward for protection under the law, because he, too, is in breach of the law. That situation is not providing protection for him or his health, and serves no purpose for the public or the young people whom we seek to protect.
It is claimed that the current state of the law protects young people, but so far I have seen no evidence of that. It is claimed that the law protects family life. Well, family life has been glorious for me. I enjoy marriage, and I know many people who do. I also know gay men who have married to protect themselves from homophobic views and bullying, but that serves no purpose to marriage, their happiness or that of the women they marry. People will not be happy if they marry to avoid homophobic behaviour, and that is not the sort of family life I support.
Many hon. Members have discussed the importance of family life and said how many of our sons, brothers, sisters and so on are gay. They are part of our families,

but people should not feel forced into relationships that are not natural for them. Just because my own marriage is natural and happy for me, I should not seek to impose a similar relationship on others. I am fortunate that the relationship that feels natural to me resembles those of the majority of people in this country, but what purpose could it serve for me to impose a relationship that suits me on another individual? My happiness is my own personal joy, and I hope that the House will find a way of allowing other people to find their personal joy in their own way.
Some people assume that, when young people are growing up and exploring their sexuality, they make a decision about it. However, the evidence shows that there is no decision to be made. The vast majority of young men who are homosexual find that out for themselves before the age of 15 and with no sexual contact. They have engaged in no physical exploration with anyone else, but they already know their own mind.
Some of my hon. Friends have already spoken of their experience with step-daughters, daughters and sons, and mine is the same. There is no possibility of my telling either of my children what their sexuality is, or of being able to change their mind. It is not a question of changing their mind—that is the crux of the matter. The construct of my argument is that a person must be valued in society, and so must their relationships, their developing sexuality and their emerging love for other people. I use the word "love" very carefully. In my experience, when young men and young girls have their first early contacts with either the opposite sex or the same sex, the first powerful feeling is one of love. That loving feeling for their first partner may not last for the rest of their life—it rarely does—but why should that surge of loving feeling between opposite-sex couples be denied to same-sex couples, and not all same-sex couples at that? It has already been said, far more poetically than I could say it, that there is a love that cannot speak its name. But let us speak it, because it is love.
I do not accept that married love between two people of the opposite sex is somehow more valuable, and has a special place—that would be to deny same-sex love. It does not mean that I denounce marriage, which has its place in society. Marriage is considered, not just by this place, but by most religions, as a special relationship in which children are brought into the world and have a special place in that family. We cannot talk about the emerging sexuality of children without talking about love. Love includes the love between parents and the love of parents for their children. It means that we accept the love that our children feel for the people with whom they have relationships throughout their life. Therefore, equalising the age of consent is an objective of paramount importance.
We also have a duty of care, which should not be about emerging sexuality, but about whether someone has a relationship of power over another person. That is where the Bill draws distinct and important lines. It does the debate a disservice to draw those lines in a trivial way by saying that, if young people go swimming, for example, or engage in a fun activity with others in a youth club, the adult running the club or in charge of the outing has a powerful relationship over those young people. That is a silly contention.
It is important to consider institutional structures such as schools, care homes and other places in which adults have a particular position over children, whether girls


or boys. What is important is that the adult does not transgress the child's trust. The trust exists because the adult has a powerful position, not just because he or she is an adult. That point was made strongly in Committee when we last discussed these provisions—this is the third time in this Parliament that we have done so. I believe that the Committee got it right—looking carefully at the position of trust was the right thing to do.
I have said it before, and I shall continue to say it: this is dependent not on sexuality, but on trust. If people are to trust us to do the right thing, we must look at a way forward that is based on equality, respect, acceptance and love.

Jackie Ballard: I think that most people would agree that the last time this subject was debated in this place, the most eloquent speech was made by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), who was then on the Conservative Benches. So far today, the most eloquent speech has come from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), although I suspect that he will not be following all the examples set by his former hon. Friend.
In the past three years, everything that could ever be said about sexual activity, sexual orientation or sexual offences has been said in this House and in the other place. However, this is the first time that I have taken part in such a debate. I will try hard not to repeat arguments that have already been made.
I strongly support the main provisions of the Bill, which will at last bring equal treatment and equal rights, at least in one respect, to my many gay and bisexual friends and constituents. I do not understand people who are obsessed with the sexual activities of others. We have all had letters from people who write in lurid detail, as have some of those who have spoken this week in the other place. I believe that it is no business of mine what consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own homes, and I do not believe that the law should be interested in that either.

Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jackie Ballard: Certainly.

Hon. Members: He has only just got here.

Mr. Robathan: As it happens, I was here at the beginning.
The hon. Lady talks about consenting adults. The whole point is that we are talking about children, as defined by the Children Act 1989 and the United Nation convention on the rights of the child. I am sure that she will acknowledge that.

Jackie Ballard: It is strange that the hon. Gentleman seems to think that at the age of 16 girls are adults, but at the age of 16 boys are still children, unless he is arguing to raise the age of consent for everyone to 18. I suspect that that would not receive wide, if any, support.
Despite my general support for the Bill—and we have heard eloquent arguments about why we should support it—I believe that it leaves many unanswered questions. It does not go far enough in some areas and goes too far

in others. The main areas in which I disagree with the Government are the continuing unequal treatment of gay men and the continued discrimination against them in law. As I indicated in my earlier intervention on the Home Secretary, I also have serious misgivings about the abuse of trust provisions.
Let me deal first with the continuing unequal treatment of gay men. At present, heterosexuals involved in group sex commit no offence as long as it is done in private. However, even after the Bill becomes law, homosexuals will still be committing a criminal act if more than two people are present or if it is deemed to be public. It is clear discrimination when the law makes no such provision of an offence for heterosexuals. I am not asking for the law against gross indecency in public places to be relaxed, but we are discussing equal treatment under the law and equal rights. Therefore, should we not be equalising it in all respects, including the issue of group sexual activity? I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
My main concerns are about the abuse of trust provisions. I do not take the line proposed by some Conservative Members that we should extend them to everyone. Many aspects of the provisions seem confused. A lot of people who speak in these debates say, "I am a parent, therefore I care more than everyone else." Well, I, too, am a parent, and I take it that we all have families of one sort or another, we all care about our children and other people's children, and we all want to make sure that they are not abused, their trust is not abused and a position of power is not abused. So I am sure that we all welcome the measures that are aimed at protecting children, particularly in residential homes and secure units, where they are especially vulnerable.
However, the provisions contain several anomalies. To check that I was not alone in being concerned about how the Bill applies to teachers, I spoke this week with representatives of four teaching unions in Somerset. Not all of them were new Labour or Liberal Democrat supporters; one, in fact, was a Conservative councillor. All opposed the new criminal offence of abuse of trust as it relates to teachers.
People may say, "They would say that, wouldn't they?" We may think that they have a vested interest. But those representatives made the point that everyone in the teaching profession is bound by a code of conduct that recognises that teachers are in a position of trust. If teachers have a consensual relationship with young adults in their care or under their supervision, they are likely to be abusing their position of trust and authority. Such behaviour can already result in disciplinary action by employers, including summary dismissal, having one's name entered on List 99 and the ending of a teaching career.
It is right to discipline a teacher for forming an abusive or exploitative relationship. However, in my view, in the view of the teaching unions, and, I think, in the view of many people when they think about how far the Bill will extend the law, it is not proportionate to the risk to go further and to determine that that is a criminal offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment.
The abuse of trust provisions were debated at length in Committee when the Bill was last discussed, although no such provisions were included when the age of consent was first debated under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Home Secretary gave two reasons for the scope of the


Bill on abuse of trust. First, teachers act in loco parentis. Secondly, there would be practical difficulties in creating separate groups within education, such as those who teach day pupils at a school where there are also boarders, and that that would create invidious anomalies.
However, other people who act in loco parentis are not covered by the Bill. They include guardians, godparents, step-parents, church leaders, and scout and guide leaders. I am sure that we could think of many others who act in the same way and who are not covered. The Home Secretary referred to teachers' power over pupils in their care, but the Bill also extends to relationships teachers have with students who are at the same institution but not being taught by the teachers. In that case, there is no relationship of trust or power; the two people merely happen to be at the same institution.
However, the Bill does not include areas in which there is a clear relationship of power, such as that between a Member of Parliament and a young researcher, and that power could easily be abused. The same is true of the relationship between any employer and a young employee. The Bill allows for a young teacher to be prosecuted, convicted and registered as a sex offender for behaviour that might be less than sexual intercourse—"sexual activity" is what the Bill specifies, although it does not define the phrase. The same behaviour would not be an offence for a general practitioner or a Member of Parliament. That will place teachers in a vulnerable position. There will be a real danger of false allegations. The net result may be that even fewer young men take up teaching in future.

Dr. Harris: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the scope of the Bill is even wider than that. A 17-year-old at university—as is the case with the majority of first-year students in Scotland—may have a relationship with someone who teaches. That person may be a postgraduate student who does not teach the 17-year-old, but who would be committing an offence if any sexual activity took place. I ask my hon. Friend to prevail on the Government to rethink that provision.

Jackie Ballard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why I am taking the House's time today. We shall have no Committee stage in which to examine the matter further and raise issues that should worry anyone who examines the scope of the Bill.
When the NAS/UWT responded to the interdepartmental working group on preventing unsuitable people from working with children, it said that there should be a national register of all those who work with young people and children. I have raised that matter before, and I am sure that I shall do so again as chairman of the cross-party group on the campaign for the registration of workers with young people and children, which is supported by both Labour and Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament.
Abuse of trust or power is always wrong. However, we must ask whether it should be a criminal offence and, if it should, in what circumstances. Should the law single out a particular group of professionals for discrimination? I believe not. Other European countries have laws that try to deal with abuse of trust through age differences. For example, in Portugal it is illegal for someone aged over 18 to have a sexual relationship with someone aged under 18. It would be more appropriate to consider age

differences in relationships rather than individual professionals for our provisions on abuse of positions of power or trust.
I suspect that the Government are determined to go ahead with the Bill, but I ask the Home Secretary to reassure me that the Government will not encourage the House of Lords to defeat it so that they can invoke the Parliament Acts on an unaltered Bill. Instead, they could encourage the other place to vote in favour of the Bill—I know that there will be a free vote in the other place, just as there will be here, but I hope that the Government will signal their hope that the Bill will not be defeated—so that a Committee stage could be held there. Then, the abuse of trust provisions, which have never been examined in detail in the other place, could be properly debated.
I also urge the Home Secretary to make a commitment to review the provisions within a year or two after the General Teaching Council, which will strengthen professional codes of conduct, and the General Social Care Council come fully into operation. The Home Secretary referred earlier to orders that could extend the scope of the Bill. I hope that he might consider orders that could reduce its scope.
There is no objective or scientific way to determine the age of consent to sexual activity for young people. It varies across Europe, from 12 in Spain—which many of us would probably think on the young side—to 17 in Greece. Apart from Luxembourg and the United Kingdom, European countries have equal ages of consent, regardless of sexuality. An unequal age of consent gives the message that it is okay to treat gay men differently and discriminate against them. It is not surprising that that homophobic message can lead to bullying, abuse, or, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) said, even worse.
The protection of young people should be one of our key duties. It is best maintained by consistent and fair laws. The passage of the Bill—even with flaws that I wish we could remove—takes us one step nearer to a fairer and more decent society.

Ms Oona King: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Second Reading.
The Bill is about two important matters: equal protection and equal treatment. I ask Members of Parliament not to encourage law breaking. First, there is law breaking by our own country. We have been found to be in breach of European law because we have evidently been discriminatory. Secondly, MPs should not encourage law breaking by those unsavoury individuals who prey on vulnerable young people. As the law stands, it encourages that.
How could any decent-minded person not want a change in the law? I have been wrestling with that question. At the root of the question lies a genuine belief—sometimes lurking in the further recesses of some people's minds but sometimes at the forefront—that gay men are inherently unequal and should be treated unequally under the law, as indeed, currently, they are.
Over the past 200 years, there has been a struggle for progress—a struggle to recognise one simple, basic premise, which is enshrined in article 1 of the United


Nations universal declaration of human rights: all human beings are born free and equal in rights and in dignity. However, the past 200 years have also been marked by the proclamations of those who are against change—who believe that they are entitled to inalienable rights, but that such rights are not transferable to other human beings. We have heard some of those views expressed by Opposition Members.
Those views are familiar because they were heard 200, even 100, years ago. It was said that black people were inferior to white people, so they could not be treated equally under the law. It was said that women were inferior to men, so they could not be treated equally under the law. If we read Hansard from 80 years ago, we will see the names of hon. Members who argued passionately that women should not be granted the vote and that, if they were, it would be the end of society.
When we read those comments today, we can scarcely believe them. We recognise in them the antediluvian, atavistic, primitive and bigoted views that they represent. We might even forgive those ancient Members of Parliament some of their bigotry—perhaps for cultural reasons or because of their sheer ignorance. They lived in an age and in a society that was primitive in its understanding of equality.
That is what we are discussing—a simple inescapable matter of equality. Unfortunately, we do not have to search through 200 years of Hansard to find bigotry and ignorance. We only have to listen to recent remarks. For example, we cannot forget Baroness Young. Several years ago, she said:
If a 16 year old girl has heterosexual relations, the worst that can happen to her is to have a baby. She could lose her heart to an unsuitable man and she may be very unhappy … But what is so tragic for the 16-year-old boy … entangled with homosexuality is that he denies himself forever the opportunities for marriage, children and a normal life.
I would say that one can have a normal life with or without marriage and children. The shadow Home Secretary might want to reflect on that point.
Lord Longford, a colleague of Baroness Young, said:
A girl is not ruined for life by being seduced. A young fellow is.
I fail to understand that logic: a young woman can get over being seduced, but a young man cannot. Those poor young men! It seems that they do not have the strength, the resilience or the moral purpose to withstand being seduced. Why are people so concerned about the right of 16-year-old boys to be protected from predatory men, but not about the right of girls? I do not understand that. I take great offence at the suggestion that, in that respect, a girl deserves less protection under the law.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I have been tempted to intervene.
The reason why some of us take the view that we do is that it is perfectly natural for a boy and a girl to engage in a physical relationship. We feel that there is something less than natural about a relationship—anal intercourse—between two men. I am sorry, but that is how we feel.

Ms King: That is precisely why I was trying to place the debate in the context of history, because in that context, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must

recognise that views have changed. Sixty-seven per cent. of young British people do not share his views and do not feel that gay men are in any way unnatural. The hon. Gentleman will have to come to terms with that, in the same way that my white racist grandmother came to terms with the fact that racism was unacceptable.
The idea has been expressed that one catches homosexuality like the pox. I find that very offensive—although I would say that hon. Members are entitled to prejudice and prejudicial views in the privacy of their minds. What really concerns me is when hon. Members allow their prejudice to maintain a law that indisputably discriminates against young gay men.
I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on the following issue. There is evidence that the current law actually protects rapists in some circumstances, and no doubt encourages them. I refer colleagues to the debate initiated by Lord Tope in October 1998, in which he read out a letter from a 16-year-old male Londoner who said:
I was raped by a man. But because I was under the age of consent, at the age of sixteen, I thought that if I told anyone, I would be arrested and put into prison. And so I did nothing"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 October 1998; Vol. 593, c. 323.]
So a rapist got away with raping a young man. I ask all hon. Members, regardless of their views on this matter, to recognise that if they vote to maintain an unequal age of consent, they are complicit in allowing young people in that situation to have to withstand brutality, violence and rape. By the same token, I believe that they are complicit in allowing rapists to escape justice.
It is not just the morality of those who want to maintain an unequal age of consent that bothers me, but their stupidity. It is an unfortunate fact of life that some men—a minority—rape. If they rape a 16-year-old girl, that young girl can go to the authorities and get the authorities behind her, but if a rapist rapes a 16-year-old boy, that young boy can go to the authorities and go straight to jail. We can see where the prejudice is, but we cannot discern the logic. In 1957, the logic of the Wolfenden report, which recommended a different age of consent for gay men, was that young men should be actively discouraged from choosing a way of life that might have the effect of setting them apart from society. First, as Stonewall has pointed out, that is a circular argument which relies on prejudice to justify prejudice. Secondly, I would hope that, in 40 years, we have made some progress.
Many studies, some of which have been alluded to, have shown that choice does not come into the matter in the way that some hon. Members might have thought it did. Most reputable medical organisations recognise that homosexuality is not a choice—a point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) expanded convincingly. In recent research by the Medical Research Council, 74 per cent. of gay men said that they thought that they were sexually different before they first had sex with a man. Of course, there is also plenty of anecdotal evidence. I have many gay friends. I was talking to one of my gay friends the other day, and he said that every single one of his 40 or 50 gay male friends had thought that they were gay by the age of 12. When I was 12 I used to dream of getting married and having children: but he and his friends knew at the age of 12 that they were gay.

Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Lady knows that I much admire her views on many subjects but


I disagree with her on this one. She has used anecdotal evidence, so I remind the House of something that I said when the matter was last before us. The only known gay boy in my secondary school—he was mercilessly teased and bullied and I felt great sympathy for him—told me that he started on the road to being homosexual when he was under-age and was interfered with by an older youth.

Ms King: My first reaction is that I hope that the hon. Gentleman fully supports the repeal of section 28 to prevent such bullying. The second and more general point is that most people recognise that people cannot transfer their sexuality if they violently attack someone. People either have a proclivity, or they do not. It is ludicrous to suggest that, had I been attacked and sexually assaulted by another woman when I was a 16-year-old girl, I would suddenly have thought, "Whoops, you know what? I am not a heterosexual: I'm actually a lesbian." Such arguments are ludicrous.
I want to return to the theme of intolerance, which has run through the debate. If we start from the premise that one group should have less protection under the law than another, we end up with the outcome that one group is worth less under the law than the other. That is the foundation stone of intolerance. Obviously, there are degrees of intolerance. For example, a little bit of intolerance is when people say that they do not like homosexuals and that homosexual relationships are worth less than heterosexual relationships. A lot of intolerance is when someone says, "Homosexuals are worthless, they have no right to life and I am going to blow them up."
The one thing that the bombs last year taught us is that intolerance is a danger to us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), in an eloquent account of the devastation that resulted from the bombs, told us how they had affected her and many of her friends and family. I am sure that the bombs affected many people personally.
When the first bomb, targeting the Afro-Caribbean community, went off in Brixton, I, as a black MP, was terribly concerned. When the second bomb, targeting the Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets, went off in Brick Lane, I was naturally, as the local MP and as someone who has lived and worked in the area, terribly concerned. When the third bomb, targeting the gay community in Soho, went off, I was very, very concerned, not least because I was standing 60 yards away at the moment of the explosion. I realised, as I watched someone having shrapnel picked out of their back, that homophobia threatens everyone, including straight women like me and the straight men on the Opposition Benches.
We cannot, in all conscience, give intolerance an excuse in the letter of the law. That is why I urge every Member of the House to vote for an equal age of consent. As we know, it is difficult to achieve change and it has been a difficult process. It takes courage to do that.
In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on the fact that his logic led him inescapably to decide that it serves no purpose, and that it is wrong and damaging, to have an unequal age of consent. I also congratulate him on the fact that he has learned to put his notes on the Bench and read them from there, which is a good trick. Finally, I congratulate him on doing so well yesterday. I hope that he will accept that those are the last congratulations I will lavish on him for the duration of this Parliament.
Homophobia should have no rock under which to hide, and unless and until we change the law, we are giving it a place to hide.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) is charming and puts her points forcefully and with good nature, if not always with good humour. She said that there is a streak of intolerance running through the debate—I believe that because many of those who have spoken in favour of the Bill have displayed marked intolerance towards those of us who take a contrary view. I have to tell the hon. Lady that we are much more in touch with the feelings of the people in this country. We may not be represented in large numbers in the House tonight, but we represent the vast majority of the British people.
It is curious that even the changed, emasculated—I will not call it "reformed"—other place has spoken for the nation. It was led by Baroness Young, whom the hon. Lady unwisely disparaged. The noble Lady has shown enormous courage in the stand that she has taken, and their Lordships have followed her lead and spoken for the people.
The Daily Record may not be the hon. Lady's everyday reading, and I suspect that it is not the everyday reading of those hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies and who have gone off to the Scottish Parliament. The Daily Record is not a Tory newspaper. There is not a Tory newspaper in Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "There are no Tories in Scotland."] They are coming back, and they will be coming back in droves now. If the hon. Lady and her colleagues had read the Daily Record over the past couple of weeks, they would have seen that every day it reported the hostility in Scotland towards the Government's proposal to repeal section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.
Cardinal Winning, who has nailed his colours firmly to the mast, has garnered enormous support and respect in Scotland. An overwhelming majority of people in Scotland are in touch with our view and wholly out of sympathy with the views expressed by Labour Members.

Ms King: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his graciousness in giving way. If his opinions represent the views of the general public, can he explain why a Harris poll showed that 74 per cent. of the general public backed an equal age of consent?

Mr. Howarth: I have not seen that poll. I saw a poll a couple of years ago which showed that 53 per cent. supported the view that I take. However, it is the latest poll in Scotland that is interesting because it reflects people's concern, as do hon. Members' mailbags. That is not to say that we are intolerant of people who have a different life style. I do not want to know what people do in their own home, behind closed doors, provided that it does not involve young people, and I do not want to read about it in the newspapers either.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), who is no longer in her place—[Interruption.] What did the Whip say from a sedentary position?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.

Mr. Howarth: I do not know what the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) said. He was pretty vocal in the previous debate on this matter.
When the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth made her impassioned speech, she displayed the patronising attitude that those of us who take a contrary view are less intellectually capable than she is and that we care less about other people than she does. That is entirely wrong.
The man who has been charged with the bombing of the Admiral Duncan public house in Soho is a constituent of mine. I resent bitterly, and my constituents will also resent bitterly, the implication of the hon. Lady's remarks that those of us who take a contrary view to hers may somehow, by our language and our actions, be encouraging that young man to do what he is alleged to have done.
That is unacceptable. I resent it, and, on behalf of my constituents, I say that the hon. Lady ought to have the courtesy to acknowledge that when we speak about these issues, we do not give, and do not intend to give, encouragement to people to resort to the bomb or other acts of violence to promote their ends.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is both capable and caring, but does he agree that even if we are able confidently and accurately to identify majority opinion as being in support of the status quo, that does not of itself absolve us of the responsibility to study the legislation, to form our own view of it and to speak and vote accordingly?

Mr. Howarth: Of course. I shall come to my hon. Friend's views in a moment. I know that his views on the importance of saving the pound are in no way influenced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the British people, in opinion poll after opinion poll, support it. He is a man of principle and he speaks from principle.
Hon. Members in all parts of the House acknowledge not only that my hon. Friend is extremely able, but that he is a man of principle. However, if he has had a change of heart, I hope that he will respect the fact that some of us have not, and that we are unpersuaded. Despite my hon. Friend's powers of persuasion, I am unpersuaded by the arguments that he advanced today, although I agree with him in his references to Europe in this debate. He and I are entirely agreed on that issue.
My hon. Friend and I may not agree in our attitude to the Bill, but we are agreed on an important aspect of it—its origin. If its origin lay solely in the Government's desire to introduce the measure, we could argue it between us and have a good debate. My hon. Friend said that he did not give a tinker's cuss for what other European countries do, for the European convention on human rights or for the European Commission of Human Rights. He and I are entirely agreed on that.
Labour Members should beware of the way in which, week in, week out, the House is ceding its powers to authorities beyond these islands. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) can feign boredom and ennui, which is a French word meaning the same thing. She is a charming hon. Member and she will understand this even if the rest of the House will not: I am not flying wholly solo as we speak, but that is between us.

Mr. Swayne: Share it with us.

Mr. Howarth: You might rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I went down that road.
As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is no longer present, when the United Kingdom signed up to the European convention on human rights, it did so only when it was absolutely certain and Ministers had agreed among themselves that the United Kingdom could not possibly be in infringement of the convention as drafted.
At that time buggery was a criminal offence, full stop. How can it be right that we were not infringing the convention then, but are doing so 50 years later? There is an answer to that question: the convention was drawn up in the aftermath of the second world war when the nations of Europe were concerned with ensuring that the atrocities that had been committed, principally by Nazi Germany, were not repeated. They were establishing a framework within which guidelines could be applied to the democratic countries and the emerging democratic Germany to ensure that a code of practice provided some bulwark—however realistic that prospect ever was—against the repetition of the atrocities of the 1940s.
Today we are experiencing a relentless intrusion on the rights of the elected United Kingdom Parliament to determine the composition of Her Majesty's armed forces. At least the Government have in this instance introduced a Bill and we are debating the age of consent, but we were unable to intervene in any way on the lifting of the ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces as no Bill was introduced.

Mr. Tom Levitt: Next Thursday.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman intervenes from a sedentary position, but has clearly not read his pager. The Armed Forces Discipline Bill has nothing to do with homosexuals serving in the armed forces and everything to do with the system of courts martial and other procedures related to military discipline. However, I would not expect him to know anything about defence. [Interruption.] I am sorry; if I was a bit harsh, I apologise.
The European Court of Human Rights is interfering in sexuality not only in respect of the armed forces. We read in the newspapers today that, apparently, the Government are to introduce proposals requiring employers not to discriminate between heterosexual married couples and homosexuals living together in respect of benefits in kind, which in the vernacular are called perks. According to the Daily Mail, which is a very good authority on these matters:
It means that a gay couple will in future get the same perks as the spouses of married staff or cohabiting heterosexuals.
I find that extremely worrying. The proposal is being introduced at the behest of the European Court of Human Rights.

Ms Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: In a moment. The decision on the armed forces was taken by judges from well-known liberal-minded countries such as Lithuania, Cyprus and Austria, whose involvement is ironic, is it not? What right have


they to interfere with our determination to make the laws of this country? We are accountable to the people who elected us; they are accountable to none.

Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member for Watford tried to intervene earlier and I allow her to do so.

Ms Ward: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way as I must try to regain at least some dignity in front of my hon. Friends by making it absolutely clear that there is no strange liaison between us. Will he explain the real reasons for his opposition to the proposal? He should not use the debate to rant against the European Union or, indeed, anything to do with Europe. This is a matter for the House; it is not a European issue. It is purely to do with equality and ensuring that young people receive the rights that they deserve.

Mr. Howarth: I was not aware that my speech was a rant, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady has made those remarks about our little discussion earlier. I had thought that someone might have written about them and we could have sued them and had a good meal together. She has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the Bill. It is not about equality, but about the pernicious influence of the European Court of Human Rights on our proceedings. It is no good Labour Members making lovey-dovey speeches. The Bill has nothing to do with the European Union, but has to do with the European Court of Human Rights and its interference in our national affairs.
The hon. Lady suggested that I used the previous argument to mask the real reasons for my opposition to the Bill. The argument that I have just advanced is a fundamental reason for opposing the Bill, but not the only one. The Government claim that the debate is about equality, but I do not subscribe to that view. The debate is—or should be—about protecting children against predators. The Home Secretary kindly allowed me to intervene in his speech earlier to express that view.
Clause 3 deals with abuse of trust. It will provide protection for 16 and 17-year-olds from teachers or others in authority who are over 18. However, it will not protect 16 and 17-year-olds from other young people of 17, 18 or older who are not in a position of trust. Earlier, I gave the example of boarding school, where a young child of 15 or 16 could feel influenced and intimidated by an older boy in a position of authority, but not in a position of trust—for example, a prefect. Those who have been to boarding school know that prefects command a lot of influence.

Ms Oona King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I want to reach the substance of my argument.
I do not believe that the Bill provides the protection that the Government claim. We are being asked to change the law. The foreseeable consequences will be deliberate exposure of young boys to abuse from older men and even paedophiles. Worse, the measure is presented in the name of equality and of giving children rights. Those who support the measure want to make it lawful for an older man to bugger a child—a 16-year-old boy—when he is at his most vulnerable and confused as he makes the

transition to manhood. As he makes that transition, he is to be exposed to activities that could scar him mentally and physically for life. Parents will ask why Parliament is trying to expose their young boys to that risk, especially when there are so many other matters about which to worry.
The Government want to protect young children from drugs and tobacco. The age at which it is lawful to buy tobacco will be increased from 16 to 18 to protect young people.

Ms King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: No, I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me.
Some hon. Members claim that it is nonsense to say that young people will not be scarred for life because homosexuality is genetic. I rebut that. Young constituents have been to see me and told me that they had been pressurised into homosexuality, that they had broken free, and that they were now leading what they—and I—regard as a normal life.
Homosexuality is not a genetic disorder. A wealth of information has been provided on the subject. I shall quote a group of eminent professors and doctors, who stated in a letter to The Wall Street Journal on 9 January 1997:
These young men and their parents have the right to know that, contrary to media propaganda, there is no proven biological basis for homosexuality.
The letter was signed by professors of psychiatry, clinical directors of psychological clinics and other eminent people in the sector in the United States. It is not acceptable to assert that it is a genetic factor; it is not. There is no evidence of that. At best, medical evidence is not unanimous on that.
Once the Bill is enacted—for surely it will be, notwithstanding the fact that it is entirely out of touch with the mood of the British people—we will find that we will go on. We will change the laws relating to employment so that we have to accord homosexuals the same rights as are accorded to heterosexual people. Anyone who thinks the Bill is the end of a process and not the beginning need know only what OutRage! has said:
Many MPs think we will be content if they equalise the age of consent. They have got to be kidding. We won't be satisfied until every discriminatory law is abolished.

Mr. Bercow: I honestly believe that my hon. Friend is wrong. He cannot at one and the same time assert the supremacy of Parliament and emphasise his belief in the importance of its continuing sovereignty, and suggest that, just because we pass the Bill, we are henceforth handing over the government of the UK in relation to sexual matters to Mr. Peter Tatchell. We are doing no such thing.

Mr. Howarth: I am not saying that. My hon. Friend misunderstands. What I am saying is that it is crystal clear that those who are behind the campaign to reduce the age of consent do not see it as the end of the story. They will ensure that, year in, year out, more legislation is brought before the House further to make homosexuality like heterosexuality. It is only a matter of time before we will be invited to support homosexual marriages, because that is the ultimate conclusion.
I will not adduce all the medical evidence, but my hon. Friend adduces many people in medical circles who support the measure. I have plenty of medical evidence that homosexual people are more exposed to illness, particularly to HIV infection. Why does the National Blood Authority refuse to accept blood from any man who has had anal intercourse once?

Ms King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: No, I will not.
The authority either knows something that the rest of the medical profession does not, or it knows something that the House wishes to close its eyes to.
The Government are renowned for trying to have it both ways. Not only are they seeking to appeal to the homosexual vote through the Bill, but the man whose name is on the back of the Bill—the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—is also the man who will send new guidelines to schools on the importance of marriage. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they support marriage but also agree to make young men vulnerable, as they will through the Bill. There will be a big price to pay.

Dr. Evan Harris: I am delighted to support the Bill, but I want to take the opportunity to respond to a couple of the points that were made by hon. Members, particularly those on the Conservative Benches, who have not taken every intervention; I have not been able to intervene.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) claimed that it is the ambition of all parents for their children to marry and to have more children. She implied that it would be a bitter disappointment to parents if their children did not do that. I do not believe that that is true in every case. I am sure that she would not regard herself as a bitter disappointment to her parents. That sort of language and approach does not show much thinking through.
I think that the right hon. Lady almost accepted that there was not a choice over whether one was homosexual, but she implied that there was a choice over life style; it was as if it was legitimate for her to say that consenting people who are heterosexual need not have any restrictions on how they express their love, but the full force of the law should restrict how consenting people whom we regard as adults express their love, if they are homosexual. It is a restriction on human rights to use the law to do that. The right hon. Lady is entitled, whatever the basis of her belief, to preach her views from any platform or pulpit. But to seek to use the law to restrict the rights to privacy, rights to expression of love, of people whom we regard as adults cannot be acceptable.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it is not an absolute restriction? It is a restriction that applies only for two years. If the love is that profound, can it not wait?

Dr. Harris: For the hon. Gentleman, the restriction would be for five years or in fact a complete restriction—

Mr. Swayne: Any number of years.

Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman is honest enough to say it now. He would not want it to be legal at all. So it is a bit disingenuous for him to say that we should criminalise people for two years if they are homosexual in consenting relationships with other people whom we regard as adults, but that we will not do it for heterosexuals. Even for that two-year period, to criminalise people in that way is not acceptable.
The implication of the argument of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was that we should encourage homosexuals to be heterosexual, that so strongly does she believe in the institution of marriage that she would use the force of the law to encourage homosexuals to marry, to enter into sham marriages, to have children, in relationships that are doomed because they are dishonest. The implication is that marriage must be promoted; that we must discourage people at the same time from following homosexual life styles; that the right hon. Lady wants to encourage people who feel that they are homosexual to enter into sham marriages and have children, resulting from those unions, who will face inevitable family breakup.
If the right hon. Lady thought a bit more deeply on the subject, and more fairly, she would see the misery that would be caused by what was implicit, if not explicit, in what she said. I listened to her carefully.
It is appropriate that the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) is here. Many of us remember with admiration his speech on two occasions in support of this proposal. If he had been following the debate from outside the Chamber he would have heard a remarkable speech by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who put quite clearly, even from his Conservative perspective, that it is not worth supporting the status quo if doing so does not achieve anything that he wants to achieve. He has been converted to that.
While I accept that the hon. Gentleman's recognition of the correctness of the points that we have been making for some time does not commit him to supporting other matters, such as repeal of section 28, all his arguments in support of his position on equalising the age of consent to 16 apply to stronger sex education in schools. That is something that I support and that I hope he will support.

Dr. Julian Lewis: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I should like to point out that, although he may have been converted to some of the arguments of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), I earnestly believe that he has no intention of following the hon. Gentleman to the Labour Benches.
I should like the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) to address in this debate, as he has on previous occasions, the difference with regard to the situation of people who are still technically children and who by being allowed to engage in anal sex are exposed to a degree of medical risk that does not apply either to straight sex or to lesbian sex.

Dr. Harris: That is an interesting point. I was about to say in response to points that the hon. Gentleman has


made previously, and in response to the speech of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who did not wish to take too many interventions because she wanted to finish quickly, that the logic of the hon. Lady's position was that people should not be engaging in penetrative sex at all, because all penetrative sex has risks. According to her logic, she should be promoting lesbianism as much as possible, because the risks associated with sexual activity among lesbians are much less than for heterosexuals and for homosexual men, if the sexual activity is not performed safely.
The message, however, is not that sexual activity is dangerous; it is that we must all take measures to reduce the risk of harm from sexual activity, be it heterosexual or homosexual. The organisations cited by the hon. Member for Buckingham—organisations such as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, HIV organisations, the Royal College of Physicians and, indeed, children's charities—want to equalise the age of consent at 16 because they want information to be given to people who otherwise, because of criminalisation, have no access to such information, or feel that they are prevented from giving it.
The hon. Lady must recognise that she cannot pray in aid the risks of homosexual activity without the same considerations applying to heterosexual activity. The same argument applies to the ludicrous and, in my view, shameful assumption that predation occurs only in the case of male homosexuals. That is patently not the case. Members who have argued on that basis do not seem to recognise that most predation involves older men—indeed, men generally—and younger women. In fact, predation probably exists to an extent in the case of homosexual females. The obsession with homosexual males is exactly that: an obsession. It is not backed up by the evidence about predation. If those presenting that argument are to have any credibility, they should be consistent.
In an interesting speech, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) mentioned other legal inequalities—for instance, in employment law. Although the hon. Gentleman is not present now, I suggest that he should consult the record to see how he voted on an amendment to the Employment Relations Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), which sought to prevent any discrimination in employment law on the ground of sexuality. The House divided on the amendment, at the behest of the Liberal Democrats, and nearly all Labour Members voted against it. If the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members are concerned—I know that Labour Members will sincerely be concerned—they should read the record of that debate and decide whether they can persuade their Front Bench to ensure that there is equality in that regard as well, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North wishes there to be.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) suggested that the wish for equality in the provision of perks in employment law was due to the European convention on human rights. The convention, however, does not apply to employment law; it is the Amsterdam treaty that will force Britain belatedly to ensure that there is equality in employment law. The argument that perks are part of pay was won in the European Court of Justice, in the Grant case. However, it was only because the company that discriminated against that person and her

lesbian partner would also have discriminated against a male homosexual and his partner that the case was found not to come under the jurisdiction of the equal treatment directive, which deals with gender equality. We need to reform our laws.
Last time we debated this issue, I was pleased that the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), was in charge. I hoped that he would accept various amendments that would improve the legislation. I believe that, in terms of equality in sexual offences law, this Bill—and clause 1 in particular—does not go far enough. During the Committee stage of the earlier legislation, the Minister turned into Mr. No, and he returned as Mr. No on Report.
The Bill does not go far enough in terms of equality for homosexuals. As has been pointed out, there is no equality for homosexuals in employment law, in pension law or in housing law and the inheriting of tenancies. There is no full equality for homosexuals in immigration law, and there is no equality for homosexual couples in adoption law. I hope that Labour Members who feel strongly about equality will press the Government to introduce legislation in all those areas.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Harris: No, not now; I should like to develop the point.
Even after the age of consent has been reduced, there will not be equality in sentencing provisions on homosexual offences. The Bill will not create equality in sexual offences law. There are huge discrepancies in sentencing provisions between lesbian offences and homosexual offences, regardless of whether the acts were consenting.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) said—I have also made the point before in the House—compared with the treatment of acts involving heterosexual sex, the privacy laws are highly discriminatory in dealing with acts between consenting adult homosexual men. If two or more such adult men are present, the act simply cannot be defined as private or, therefore, as legal. Arrests, prosecutions and convictions are still occurring on the basis of those laws.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has recited a load of matters in which he hopes the Labour Government will create equality in the law for homosexuals. Is the policy of the Liberal Democrats therefore to allow homosexual marriage, too?

Dr. Harris: Marriage is of course an institution and, in another sphere of law, is dealt with in civil marriage. It also has a religious connotation to it. As I am not a religious person, I do not pretend to know how religious institutions might change their rules. However—specifically to answer the hon. Gentleman's question; I think that he wants this answer—those rights that are available to heterosexual co-habiting couples, who have the choice to marry, should be available to homosexual


couples in a similar stable relationship. The arguments for such change—in all the spheres that I have mentioned— are overwhelming.

Mr. Howarth: indicated dissent.

Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman disagrees. That is where we differ. Nevertheless, I hope that he recognises that I have answered his question.
Gross indecency is another offence in which sexual offences law is grossly unequal. By definition, it is a homosexual-only offence.
I realise and accept that the Government cannot address all those issues in clause 1. I think that the Government recognised that limitation when, in response to a proposal that I made to abolish that privacy provision, they introduced a most welcome review of sexual offences law.
I ask the Minister, in his reply, to update us on the progress of that review. Will there be legislation on it in this Parliament, or is there insufficient time in this Parliament to introduce legislation based on the review? If there is not sufficient time to introduce such legislation, it will have implications for the way in which—while there is still time—both Houses deal with this Bill. If this is the last chance that this Parliament will have to address other issues, which I shall describe in a moment, we should know whether there is any likelihood of legislating, on the basis of equality, on the review of sexual offences legislation.
Clause 1 fails to deal with two other matters, the first of which is use of the sex offenders register for consenting offences. It is absolutely vital that we dissociate consenting homosexual offences from the remit of sexual abuse unless similarly consenting offences for heterosexuals are included in it. It seems absolutely wrong—I do not believe that the Government can defend it—that consenting homosexual offences occurring between consenting adults should be subject to sex offenders registration legislation whereas similar heterosexual offences are not subject to it. There can be no justification for it.
Although the age of consent will be equalised from 18 to 16, the Bill provides for no subsequent repeal of the sex offenders legislation. It is a serious omission.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks, I should be very grateful if he would again address himself to the point that perhaps I did not make clearly enough in my earlier intervention. HIV results from unprotected anal sex, whether between males and males or males and females. Unprotected sex occurs more frequently between homosexual males than between straight couples and of course between gay women. The Bill legalises homosexual relations—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The intervention is far too long.

Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman's intervention was far too long and far too incoherent. The point of health education is to ensure that sexual activity is safe, not of a specific nature. The hon. Gentleman does not have to do

anything if he does not want to, but he should not criticise others whom we consider to be adults for having consenting sexual relations.

Dr. Lewis: rose—

Dr. Harris: I shall not give way again, because the hon. Gentleman wants to make an argument that has already been answered by all the medical organisations that can be cited.

Dr. Lewis: Sixteen and 17-year-olds are children.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that he had finished speaking. That is the end of the matter.

Dr. Harris: The council of the British Medical Association, which is relatively conservative, voted unanimously that the reduction in the age of consent from 18 to 16 was a necessary step to improve health education and provide information about how people can protect themselves when engaging in sexual activity. The same applies to heterosexuals. That argument was made forcefully by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and I wish that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) would take it on board.

Ms Ward: The hon. Member for New Forest, East seemed to suggest that 16 and 17-year-olds were not capable of making the decision. They are capable of deciding to join the armed forces and go on the front line for their country if necessary. Surely they are able to determine their sexuality.

Dr. Harris: The hon. Lady is right. Sixteen and 17-year-old girls are capable of giving consent to having sexual relations with the hon. Member for New Forest, East. I have never seen an amendment tabled by him to raise the age of consent to 18. Until he tables such an amendment his arguments will be prejudicial because he is selecting one group for criminalisation.

Dr. Lewis: rose—

Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman has had his say.

Dr. Lewis: I was cut off from having my say.

Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not cut off from having his say. Interventions should be brief. That is what I was trying to point out to him.

Dr. Harris: In the section 28 debate in the House of Lords, Lord Moran came out with unjustifiable prejudice against homosexuals on the grounds of paedophilia and child abuse. He said that the young had to be defended. I was going to read his remarks, but they were so offensive that I do not want to do so.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Go on.

Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman can look at my copy of Hansard if he wants. The implication was that


paedophilia was a homosexual issue but the overwhelming majority of paedophiles are heterosexual. The Government have to recognise that people make that false assumption. They are reforming the law step by step and the Bill is a small but welcome part of that process. They should also alter the law on the sex offenders register. It is unacceptable that people will be subject to the administrative requirements of registering solely for acts that will be legal on the enactment of the Bill. How can the Government justify making someone register as a sex offender because of an act that will no longer be illegal? Even when it was illegal, it was committed between consenting people whom we regard as adults.
In Committee last time we considered the issue, Conservative Members supported my point of view. The Minister was alone among the Front Benches in refusing to move for the simple reason that to find the 78 people whose human rights were being abused would cost money, because the Government would have to go through the court records. I simply cannot believe that a price, especially a modest one, can be put on decent treatment for people. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government will reconsider an amendment in the other place to close that dreadful loophole.
My final point concerns the absence of a statutory defence for homosexuals. That is important because another clause in the Bill has implications for homosexuals accused of breaches of the age of consent law. Heterosexuals who are accused of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 may adduce a statutory defence in court. They can claim that they did not know that the person with whom they have been accused of having unlawful sexual intercourse was below the age of 16 and that they had reasonable grounds for that belief.
It is very common for partners to be picked up in nightclubs, for which the age of admission is 18 or 21. They may have been drinking, so they have already deceived bar staff about their age. Sexual contact may then take place, but heterosexuals can claim in their defence that they had reasonable cause for mistaking the age of their partner. That defence is available to ensure that people are not convicted or locked up when they have been deceived and it is also important that people are not open to blackmail.
In Scotland, that defence is also available for homosexuals who are accused under the law on the age of consent, but that is not the case in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. If the act is proven and the age is proven, there is no possible defence, even if someone was deceived as to the age of the other person. There may be arguments about whether it is right to have that statutory defence for men under the age of 24 who have not been charged with a similar offence before—it is not a universal defence—but if it is appropriate for heterosexuals, it must also be appropriate for homosexuals, because the risk of blackmail also exists.
Clause 2 decriminalises the person aged under 16 in cases of unlawful sexual intercourse, and I welcome that because I proposed it in Committee the last time the Bill was considered, with the support of the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). At the moment, it is the criminalisation of the younger party that prevents young boys who are pimped from deceiving older men about their age, having sexual relationships and then blackmailing them, because the young boys also risk

prosecution. Decriminalising the younger person opens the way again to widespread blackmail of men who are deceived about the age of their partners and do not have the statutory defence that is open to heterosexuals.
Last time during the passage of the Bill, the Government said that they wanted to clamp down, once the law was equal, on age of consent offences, which are often not prosecuted for heterosexuals. If there is a clampdown, and the statutory defence is not open to homosexuals as it to heterosexuals, the only people who will be prosecuted and convicted will be homosexuals, and that would be directly discriminatory in a way that the Government would not welcome. I urge the Government to be open minded if amendments are tabled in the House of Lords, because that will ensure that the Bill goes further towards equality in sexual offences law for homosexuals than it does at the moment. Otherwise, I support part 1 of the Bill.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is entirely right on his last point about the decriminalisation of the partner under 16 in a homosexual relationship. He will recall that, when we debated the matter earlier, I pointed out to him that the effect of that provision is to abolish the age of consent, not merely to reduce it. However, I do not wish to rehearse arguments that we have had before.
My reading of the mood of the House is that the trenches have been well dug. We have argued about this a great deal and there is little more to be said. In fact, the longer we drag this out, the more danger there is of seeing other spectacular and awful conversions such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), so I do not intend to detain the House for long.
I wish to revisit my earlier intervention on the Home Secretary, when I said that there was a fundamental contradiction between the two principles that underlie the Bill. The first principle is that a boy of 16—I know that the Bill is drawn wider, but I confine my remarks to this particular aspect—is sufficiently mature and developed to decide to have carnal knowledge of another boy of 16. Yet the Bill also provides that boys of 16 are immature enough to require protection from sharing precisely such a relationship with someone with whom they should properly share a bond of trust. I said that those provisions were mutually exclusive, because the obvious truth of the second proposition proves the falsehood of the first. Surely a boy cannot be sufficiently mature to decide to have a homosexual relationship at 16 if he requires the protection of the law against just such a relationship with someone whom he should trust.
The Home Secretary's reply was very revealing. He said, effectively, that the principle that I imagined existed in respect of the first case—namely, that a boy of 16 was sufficiently mature—was not part of the Bill and that the only principle was one of equality. If a boy of 16 is capable of making a decision about ordinary sexual behaviour, he should also be capable of making such decisions about homosexual behaviour. The House is effectively being asked to decide whether homosexual behaviour and ordinary sexual behaviour are equal. That is the clear implication of the Home Secretary's reply to


my intervention. The House must decide whether those two types of sexual behaviour are equal—of the same value.
I believe that homosexuality and ordinary sexual behaviour are clean different, and not equal in any way. It is proper that the law should establish that inequality. It is proper that young men of 16, who I believe are still very impressionable, should have the assistance of the law in reinforcing a powerful message that homosexual behaviour is not normal.

Mr. Bercow: I might be wrong, but is it not the case that Department for Education and Employment circular 11/95 lists, among other types of misconduct, the engagement of a teacher in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a pupil, even if that pupil is over the age of consent? That seems, if I may say so, fundamentally to undermine my hon. Friend's thesis.

Mr. Swayne: I fear that I do not see how that example undermines my thesis. Indeed, I regard it as entirely irrelevant to the point that I am developing. It is more in tune, certainly, with the provision that gives protection to those who need it from people whom they would otherwise trust. However, I am concentrating on the fundamental principle that the two types of sexual behaviour are equal. It is my contention that they are not. I contend that the vast majority of the people whom we were sent here to represent do not regard it as equal. They are tolerant of different types of behaviour, but they are nevertheless aware that types of behaviour are not equal and they welcome law that reinforces inequality.
As I said to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, there is no absolute abrogation of what might be called human rights in this respect. Those parties disappointed at 16 by being unable to pursue their homosexual desires are only being asked to wait two years until they are marginally more mature and better able to make the decision.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend accept that people will do what they are going to do whether or not there is a law? The point is that the Bill will decriminalise acts that will be performed anyway. It will enable vulnerable young people to seek medical help and, sometimes, the help of the police when they have been obliged to do something that they would not have wished to have done.

Mr. Swayne: Much of what my hon. Friend says has force, but the last part about medical help is fatuous nonsense. People are perfectly capable of seeking advice without bringing any criminal penalty upon themselves.

Ms Oona King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Swayne: Let me answer my hon. Friend first. He was entirely right to say that many of the acts that we are debating will take place no matter what. If the Bill passes, there will be no huge change in behaviour. It will have an impact only at the margin, but we should not ignore that margin. Young men would undoubtedly be encouraged by the force of the law to sublimate their unnatural desires,

which they would in all probability outgrow, so that they could live otherwise blameless lives. Some at the margin will not be so encouraged if we change the law, and they will bring upon themselves a less eligible life style than they would otherwise have. The Bill is important for those few young men at the margin.
The Bill is important for another reason. It undermines our clear message of society's values, which are shared by the people who sent us here. People feel profoundly that homosexuality is not equal. It is, I am afraid, gross and unnatural.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I found myself quite rightly corrected by you earlier for making an over-long intervention. I trust that I shall not be corrected now for making too short a speech, because I intend to make simply the point that I tried to make in that intervention and one other.
I did not intend to speak, because I made two substantial speeches in our previous debates. They are on the record, and can be found on my website—www.julianlewis.net—for the edification of my constituents and anyone else who wants to know my views.
The argument about the need to decriminalise people who are currently below an age of consent would, if carried to its logical conclusion, undermine the very concept of any age of consent. Yet, as societies have become more civilised, they have taken greater care of their children, raising ages of consent rather than lowering them. The first age of consent in this country was 12. It was later raised to 13, then to 16. At any one of those stages, it could have been argued that it was wrong to pitch the age of consent so high, because it would criminalise those who were below that age.
As I have said before—it remains as true as it was—the purpose of an age of consent is not to criminalise those below that age, but to protect them from being seduced by people above that age. That is the concept on which the age of consent is based. It is thus fatuous to say that the age of consent must be reduced in order to decriminalise those below it, because those people are never prosecuted in any case.
My second and final point is the one that I unavailingly tried—not once, but twice—to put to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) during his speech. I was surprised to hear him say that I had not advocated that the age of consent should be equalised. The hon. Gentleman attended a sitting of the Standing Committee for the previous version of the Bill at which I argued that, if equality was the prime issue, there was a stronger argument for equalisation at 18 than at 16. The reason for that is medical—as I started to explain earlier. I maintain that the argument is not about morality, but about health.
I could not attend the whole of today's debate because I had to move an amendment in Committee on another Bill; but, on this and other occasions, I have never heard


a refutation of the medical fact that HIV most frequently results from penetrative, anal sex—whether between two males or between a male and a female.

Ms Ward: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that health issues are not age related, but are the same whether one is 16, 17, 18 or 80?

Dr. Lewis: I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Lady because her point brings me to what my brief contribution is primarily about—the difference between an adult and a child. Someone aged 16 or 17 is not an adult and is not recognised as an adult. Those Members who argue that such people are adults, when it comes to the risk of contracting HIV through unprotected anal sex with people who really are adults, are the same Members who argue that 16 or 17-year-olds should not be allowed to be put in harm's way in the armed forces. As usual, such opponents want it both ways.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
There is a serious misunderstanding. HIV and AIDS do not know the barriers of sexuality. The problem with HIV and AIDS is that millions of women and small children will die—not because they are homosexual, but because HIV is a virus that spreads through penetrative sex. It is wholly unfair and irresponsible of the hon. Gentleman not to recognise those problems in Africa.

Dr. Lewis: In forgetting which party he was elected to represent, the hon. Gentleman has also forgotten the content of a debate in which we both participated some months ago. It was explained then that the circumstances appertaining in Africa to resistance to the HIV virus did not apply in this country. The hard medical fact in Britain—it is only for Britons that we legislate at present—is that, if one has unprotected anal sex with a man, whether one is a man, a boy or a woman, one is at much greater risk of contracting AIDS than one would otherwise be.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Unfortunately, the turncoat hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) was not in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) mentioned that the chief executive of the Public Health Laboratory Service said that gay men still remain the single largest group at risk of acquiring HIV. Is that not game, set and match?

Dr. Lewis: I believe that, in terms of what has been recognised by the medical authorities in this country, it is beyond doubt, beyond question, beyond a scintilla of the slightest hesitation, that the people most at risk in this country, for whom we are legislating, are the people who engage in unprotected anal sex.

Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Lewis: No, I will not. I must conclude my remarks.
As a result of that increased risk, the logic of what is being proposed today is that people who are recognised as being under the age of majority—under the age of 18, under the age at which this society recognises that people

have the responsibility to take life-and-death decisions for themselves—are being exposed to a greater risk of catching a deadly disease.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Lewis: No, I am not giving way. I am concluding my remarks.
That was my position in the first debate on this issue and that was my position in Committee in that first argument about this issue. Nothing that I have heard this afternoon has encouraged me to alter that position in the slightest degree.

Mr. David Lidington: The arguments that have been deployed by hon. Members on both sides of the divide this afternoon have been presented with great passion and have obviously sprung from deep personal belief and commitment. I shall not single out everyone who has spoken—but, although I shall not be in the Lobby with her tonight, I want to tell the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) that her speech was presented with a generosity of spirit and an idealism which reflected the best of the motives of those who are supporting the Bill tonight.
I want to chide some of those who spoke in support of the Bill, because I think that their arguments, although deeply felt—I appreciate that I differ from them, and I try to understand their point of view—misrepresented the equally strong feelings held by those of us who will vote against Second Reading.
I say to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen)—I hope that I say this with an understanding of her long-standing and intense commitment to this cause—that what I found striking about the public reaction to the three bombs in London last year was the fact that they brought forth a common horror among people of all political persuasions, whatever view they might take on the issue of the age of consent and from whatever race or social background they might come. That horror arose because we seek to resolve our arguments and our disagreements, however deeply felt, by debate, by vote and by election—not by terror.
I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Lady will understand that those of us on this side of the argument feel that she did not do justice to her cause in what appeared to me to be an elision of argument, so as to represent us as in some way giving succour to those who sought to bring about the terrorist attacks that she rightly condemned.

Ann Keen: I reiterate what I said about the use of language. Offensive language such as we have heard—if not too often in this debate, I am pleased to say, but on previous occasions and in another place—encourages and gives licence to people who feel that they can condone hatred, homophobia and even worse. People have been beaten and gay men have been murdered; they have been under attack and they are still under attack. When offensive language is used in a place like this, it gives licence to such behaviour. I have no intention of offending any Member, but I do not want any Member to offend any member of the public and families outside.

Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for, at least, making her position her clear. I agree with her to the


extent that, in seeking to express strongly held views, we should all use language that does not inflame unreasonable passion and provoke violent and undemocratic action.
My second point applies to several comments made today. There was too ready an attempt to dismiss simply as bigotry or outmoded thoughts the views that are held not just by those of us in the Chamber who oppose the Bill, but by a large section of opinion in the country. We can swap figures about opinion polls. However, even the Bill's keenest advocates would acknowledge that it is controversial and that it is opposed by a large section of public opinion that includes not just the Christian Churches, but Jewish and Muslim leaders. Parliament should not lightly dismiss public opinion.

Mr. Fabricant: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with considerable interest. Does he accept that there are times when legislation may be unpopular but right? Simply to be governed by what the majority of the population might think—and perhaps even to be governed by focus groups—does not necessarily mean that we are doing what is right for the nation and the people who elect us.

Mr. Lidington: I have never argued that we should be governed by a simple arithmetical calculation of public opinion, and certainly not by focus groups. If I had thought that, I would not have voted consistently for the abolition of capital punishment. However, it is incumbent on democratic politicians to reflect carefully when they support a measure that is both controversial and flies in the face of majority public opinion. At the very least, they should express their support for such a measure with a proper understanding of, and respect for, the views of those who oppose them.
I approach the Bill with views of my own. Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I make it clear that I am speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the Conservative party. My approach was summed up better than I could phrase by the Bishop of Liverpool, the Right Rev. James Jones, when he wrote recently:
The challenge of a civilised society is to be able to set moral priorities while at the same time being tolerant towards and respecting the conscience of those who dissent. Society has not always got that balance right. There is a history of oppression of homosexuals and the moral certainties of the past have clearly played into the hands of bigots. But as English society becomes more tolerant, it needs to acknowledge that those who give moral and social priority to marriage are not necessarily homophobic. It is important to have the debate on sexuality without demonising each other.
Before I come on to the age of consent, I want to deal briefly with the other important aspects of the Bill and express general support for the measures on the abuse of trust. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in paying tribute to the courage and energy of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) in persuading the Government and Parliament to incorporate the provisions in the Bill.
We may, as individual Members, have questions about the scope of those provisions, such as whether the maximum penalty is adequate. However, the procedural motion that the House adopted on Monday prevents a Committee stage and any discussion of amendments to the Bill, so we have to take the measures on abuse of trust as they come.
The amendment to the earlier Bill, which was moved by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), will decriminalise an under-age partner in a sexual relationship. That amendment was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Colne Valley. Although I had serious doubts about the amendment when it was first proposed, I now think that the hon. Gentleman was right to introduce it. That measure will tackle the problem that several hon. Members who support the Bill have talked about at length—the problem of young people who fear that if they go to their parents, a teacher, a doctor or the police, they risk criminalising themselves, even though they desperately want to get out of a relationship into which they have allowed themselves to be seduced.
The debate has clearly focused on the basic issue of the age of consent. I am willing to admit that I have had to think about this issue. It is not simply a matter of what we, as individuals, believe. I approach it as someone who is not a libertarian. In my social views, I am an old-fashioned Conservative. I believe in the primacy of marriage and that marriage is the best framework for the mutual love of one human being for another and the best environment in which to bring up children.
I must, however, acknowledge that we do not live in a theocracy; we live in a free society. There may be many things that I, as an individual, regard as wrong, immoral or mistaken, which nevertheless should not be the subject of criminal law. I believe that adultery has done immeasurable harm to family life and has scarred many children for life, but I am not proposing that adultery should be made a criminal offence and the subject of criminal sanctions.

Mr. Stephen Pound: The Conservative party would lose half its members.

Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman must speak for himself.
Much of the Home Secretary's speech was about equal rights. He talked about wanting to set a legal framework within which people should be free to live their lives in peace. I agree with that as a general principle, but I shall nevertheless vote against the Bill. I accept the general principle that what adults do in private, voluntarily, is a matter for them, and the law generally should not intervene in those decisions. However, we are not talking about the state of Britain in the years before the Wolfenden report or the legal reforms of 1967; we are talking about people who are legally children.
The age at which one draws any line will be a matter of judgment, and whatever age is chosen, there will always be some people who are below that age and have an emotional and moral maturity beyond their years. Equally, there will be some who need, in an ideal world, greater protection, even though they are above the age at which the law states that they are entitled to be regarded as adults.
To set in law any age of majority or any age of consent inevitably involves a judgment based on a generalisation about people of that age. Eighteen is the legal age of majority in this country. It is the age which the Children Act 1989 defines as marking the threshold of adulthood. It is also the age defined by the United Nations convention on the rights of the child as marking the bridge between childhood and adulthood.
Because I believe that the law should not interfere with what adults do in their private lives, when the issue arose in the previous Parliament, after much thought I voted in favour of reducing the age of consent for homosexuals from 21 to 18. That is a logical and sustainable point of view.
Two aspects of the Bill concern me. First, I believe that the Bill sends a message about Parliament's view of the direction that society should take. In his speech, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) spoke about the way in which legislation can be used to send out signals to the wider society, and we are familiar with the idea that the law can help to lead and shape public opinion. That is a feature of debates about race relations law, equal opportunities law and so on.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) pointed out, some people and some organisations—by no means all those who support the Bill—see it as part of a wider agenda, which would later seek to reduce the age of consent further, perhaps to 14, the legal recognition of homosexual partnerships and equal rights for gay couples to adopt children. That broad agenda is already part of the active political debate in the United States.
Those who advance that point of view are at least arguing from a coherent position of support for general equality. I acknowledge that the last time the Bill was debated, the Home Secretary made it clear in response to his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) that the Government were opposed to measures of the sort that I have just described, but I believe that when the Bill is enacted, it will only encourage the people and organisations promoting that agenda.
Secondly, in debating the measure, we are discussing the extent to which the law should protect young people below the age of majority by second-guessing their own private decisions. It comes down to a judgment about the maturity of 16-year-olds. One of the most cogent speeches in the House of Lords debate on the Bill was that from the Labour Benches by Lord Mishcon, the last surviving member of the Wolfenden committee, who spoke and voted against a further reduction in the age of consent.
Referring to the Wolfenden report's conclusion, Lord Mishcon said that while there was an element of arbitrariness in any decision about an age of consent,
all things considered the legal age of contractual responsibility seems to us to afford the best criterion for the definition of adulthood … While there are some grounds for fixing the age as low as sixteen, it is obvious that however 'mature' a boy of that age may be as regards physical development or psycho-sexual make-up, and whatever analogies may be drawn from the law relating to offences against young girls, a boy is incapable at the age of sixteen of forming a mature judgment about actions"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 947.]
of this kind.
Whether or not we accept the verdict of Lord Mishcon and the Wolfenden report must be a matter for individual judgment on the basis of our own experience and beliefs. There is a case, as some hon. Members have noted, for seeking to equalise the age of consent at a higher age for women as well as for men, but that is not in the Bill, and the Government's procedural motion that was passed on

Monday means that we are denied the opportunity of discussing that at a later stage. We must accept the Bill as it has been brought before us.

Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lidington: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to conclude my remarks.
There have been very few prosecutions in recent years for cases of consensual intercourse between young men aged between 16 and 18. The police and the prosecuting authorities have operated a discretionary policy and I would not argue against that, but one of my fears is that passing the Bill would, in practice, extend that de facto tolerance to a younger group and that men in their 20s, 30s or 40s would claim—in Scotland as a defence or elsewhere in mitigation of sentence—that they believed a boy to be 16 although he was 15 or even only 14. We should not dismiss that risk lightly.

Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lidington: I will not.
I cannot prove that my fears will be borne out, but my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is mistaken to assert that the burden of proof lies with those of us who defend the status quo. When the protection of vulnerable young people is at stake and when there is doubt, we should put that protection ahead of the principle of equality. My fear is that the House will fail in its duty to those young people and to the country if it supports the Bill tonight.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): We have had a good, wide-ranging debate and one thing is clear: the Bill is not about section 28 and the responsibilities of public bodies. Nor is it about codes of practice and equal opportunity in employment. It certainly is not about gay marriage and an attack on the family. It behoves no party on either side of the House to claim to be the party of the family and we are all agreed that families are a good thing. They contain gay people and straight people and are about ties of mutual love and affection. They are, and need to be, whole and healthy institutions for the good of not only the individuals in them, but, we all surely believe, society. It is no use labelling those on one side or another of the argument pro or anti-family.
The Bill is about the equalisation of the age of consent, the protection of vulnerable people and abuse of trust. Various strands ran through the speeches of all those who contributed to the debate, but each of them—in different ways and from different sides of the argument—clearly acknowledged the importance and significance of respect for difference, in sexuality and in age. They created a sense of the importance of equality before the law, the law as a framework for our actions and people's rights and responsibilities—not only the rights of the young in relation to their own sexuality, important though that is, but the responsibility to them held by older people in positions of trust. They also made it clear that we, as legislators, must get the balance right. We try to do that. The Bill gives the House the opportunity to achieve that balance and to make a judgment. As well as respecting


differences in sexuality, we must also respect differences in deeply held opinions and convictions. Different convictions can be held with honesty. We do not need to paint each other as homophobes and bigots or as being part of a sort of homintern, or homosexual conspiracy designed to undermine civilisation and the family. We have resisted the temptation to do that in the main, but with some notable exceptions.
We all respect the importance of difference. We understand that the law has to ensure that young people can safely be different in their sexuality: safe from the predatory sexuality of older people and safe from the enormous damage that is done to young people who are made to feel guilty and ashamed of their sexuality.
We should reflect on messages. I understand the point that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made about them. However, what sort of message do we send young people when we say that their sexuality, which is real to them, is criminal, shameful and should be hidden under a bushel? We know that the mental and sexual health of those who hide such issues and are not prepared to discuss them or share their fears are at risk. There is a high price to pay in self-worth if we criminalise a group of young people because they happen to be gay.
Hon. Members have a free vote tonight. I have always taken the view that equalising the age of consent in law is the best way in which to protect young people. It does not make them vulnerable; it makes us better able to ensure that they grow up without being subject to the risks that have been discussed today. However, hon. Members will make up their own minds about that.
Important speeches have been made in the debate. It is invidious to single out individual contributions, but two struck me as especially significant: the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) and that of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The last person to deliver such a forceful and eloquent speech on the subject that we are considering from the Opposition Benches subsequently had a cup of tea with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), and the rest is history. The Labour party is a broad church. I was delighted that my hon. Friend had a cup of tea with my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), but if she is minded to have a cup of tea with the hon. Member for Buckingham, that will strain the strength of the pillars of the temple.

Mr. Bercow: First, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) will be pleased to know that there is no such prospect whatever. Secondly, I reassure the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and hon. Friends that, as I approach my death bed, the last words that will trip off my tongue will almost certainly be, "Vote Conservative."

Mr. Boateng: I was just beginning to like the hon. Gentleman, but there we are.
It has been a good and serious debate. It came out of all the speeches that we must ensure that, whatever the age of consent, whatever people's sexuality or gender, we make common cause on protecting people from abuse, which is of the utmost seriousness. It is important to detach the two

things. We are not introducing proposals in relation to abuse of trust because we are giving the House the opportunity to vote on equalisation of the age of consent. My hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) both have strong track records in the House in relation to matters to do with children. It is a concern for both sides of the House. In other debates, the hon. Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) have also expressed concerns about the protection of children. Our abuse of trust provisions seek to ensure that we have in place a workable mechanism to prevent young people—be they men or women, the prey of predators male or female, straight or gay—from being abused.
The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) has raised some of the teacher unions' legitimate concerns. We had to make a decision on how to cast that Bill. Of course, it will be important to monitor and to see how the provisions work in practice, but our conclusion was that the relationship between a teacher and a pupil was a particular one—the teacher is in loco parentis.

Jackie Ballard: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Lady made her point well. If she will excuse me, we have to get on.
We believe that that relationship is one of special trust that needs to be protected by law, but we keep those matters constantly under review and we will co-operate with teacher unions in developing the code of practice. It is for that reason that we decided to proceed in that way.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked me some specific questions about the position in relation to Scotland, so it is right that I should answer them in some detail. By agreed convention, Westminster will not normally legislate for Scotland with regard to a devolved matter without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. In this case, and with the Parliament Act 1911 in mind, we sought the consent of the Scottish Parliament and it was given. Since this is a pre-commencement enactment, the Royal Assent having been given, if that is the will of this Parliament, the power in relation to Scotland will come into effect when the First Minister makes the necessary orders. That is how it will work in relation to Scotland, and of course Scotland will have the power to amend the legislation for Scotland if it wishes at some later time.
The House has given this matter great consideration over a number of days on three successive occasions. We have been into these matters in great detail, properly so, in Committee and on the Floor of the House. The time has arrived for us to come to a conclusion in this House, and to come to a conclusion that carries with it the full weight of the Parliament Act 1911. So when we send this measure to the other place it will take with it its own message in terms of our vote, and the other place will understand what motivates us.
What will motivate hon. Members in arriving at their decision is the belief that we are talking about equality before the law and the protection of the vulnerable. I end on this note, because the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) sought to make his point, as he has every right to do, in relation to the European convention on human rights. He suggested that we in this House were somehow subordinating our consideration of these matters


to considerations that belonged to an alien institution far from these shores which had no business telling us what to do.
I do not think that anyone who has heard the debate in this Chamber, anyone who has read the correspondence or met the deputations that have been to see hon. Members on all sides of the argument, could believe that this is not a matter that we are deciding for our country.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng: No.
We are, however, deciding it within a context and framework that is, yes, one of human rights. The hon. Gentleman referred to the European convention as something that arose post war, out of the events of that war, and said that it was in no way possible that those who framed that piece of international law would have dreamed that it would ever be applied to issues of sexuality. It was born out of the war, he said.
Well, the hon. Gentleman should reflect on who it was who died in the gas chambers. It was the Jews, it was the gypsies and it was the gays. And he should remember, too, the ground in which intolerance and bigotry grew.
Therefore, for those of us who look to the convention as a reminder of the importance of human rights, to those of us who look to the convention as a reminder of what equality before the law should be, that is a tradition that is entirely honourable, and those of us who will vote for the equalisation of the age of consent tonight will do so because we believe in equality, because we believe in the common humanity of all, regardless of age, regardless of sexuality.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 102.

Division No. 71]
[6.49 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov"try NE)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Alexander, Douglas
Bradshaw, Ben


Allan, Richard
Brady, Graham


Allen, Graham
Brand, Dr Peter


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Austin, John
Browne, Desmond


Ballard, Jackie
Buck, Ms Karen


Barnes, Harry
Burden, Richard


Barren, Kevin
Burgon, Colin


Battle, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Beard, Nigel



Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Casale, Roger


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Caton, Martin


Bercow, John
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Best, Harold
Chaytor, David


Betts, Clive
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clwyd, Ann


Blizzard, Bob
Coaker, Vernon


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Coffey, Ms Ann


Borrow, David
Cohen, Harry


Boswell, Tim
Coleman, Iain





Colman, Tony
Iddon, Dr Brian


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cooper, Yvette
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jamieson, David


Corston, Jean
Jenkins, Brian


Cousins, Jim
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cox, Tom



Crausby, David
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)



Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Darvill, Keith
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davidson, Ian
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kemp, Fraser


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Dawson, Hilton
Kidney, David


Dean, Mrs Janet
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Denham, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Dismore, Andrew
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Dobbin, Jim
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Leslie, Christopher


Doran, Frank
Levitt, Tom


Drown, Ms Julia
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Duncan, Alan
Linton, Martin


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Livingstone, Ken


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Edwards, Huw
Llwyd, Elfyn


Efford, Clive
Love, Andrew


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McAvoy, Thomas


Etherington, Bill
McCabe, Steve


Evans, Nigel
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Fabricant, Michael
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Field, Rt Hon Frank



Fisher, Mark
McDonagh, Siobhain


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McDonnell, John


Follett, Barbara
McNamara, Kevin


Foster, Don (Bath)
MacShane, Denis


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Foulkes, George
McWalter, Tony


Fyfe, Maria
McWilliam, John


Galloway, George
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gapes, Mike
Mallaber, Judy


Gardiner, Barry
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Gerrard, Neil
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Martlew, Eric


Godman, Dr Norman A
Maxton, John


Godsiff, Roger
Meale, Alan


Goggins, Paul
Merron, Gillian


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Bill (Shef"ld Heeley)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Moffatt, Laura


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Moonte, Dr Lewis


Grocott, Bruce
Moore, Michael


Grogan, John
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Morley, Elliot


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hancock, Mike



Harris, Dr Evan
Mountford, Kali


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mullin, Chris


Healey, John
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Norris, Dan


Heppell, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
O'Hara, Eddie


Hill, Keith
Öpik, Lembit


Hood, Jimmy
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Pickthall, Colin


Hope, Phil
Pike, Peter L


Hopkins, Kelvin
Plaskitt, James


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Pond, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pound, Stephen


Humble, Mrs Joan
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)






Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Prior, David
Stringer, Graham


Prosser, Gwyn
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Stunell, Andrew


Quinn, Lawrie
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rammell, Bill
Swinney, John


Rapson, Syd
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Raynsford, Nick
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Todd, Mark


Rendel, David
Truswell, Paul


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ruddock, Joan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tyler, Paul


Ryan, Ms Joan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Savidge, Malcolm
Ward, Ms Claire


Sawford, Phil
White, Brian


Sedgemore, Brian
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sheerman, Barry
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Shipley, Ms Debra
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wise, Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Wood, Mike


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Woodward, Shaun


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Soley, Clive



Spellar, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mr. Tony McNulty and


Stinchcombe, Paul
Mr. Jim Dowd.




NOES


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Duncan Smith, Iain


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baldry, Tony
Faber, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Fallon, Michael


Benton, Joe
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gale, Roger


Breed, Colin
Garnier, Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gill, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Cann, Jamie
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Green, Damian



Grieve, Dominic


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Colvin, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heald, Oliver


Cran, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Horam, John





Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Ruffley, David


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Russell, Bob (Colchester)



St Aubyn, Nick


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Letwin, Oliver
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Swayne, Desmond


Lidington, David
Syms, Robert


Loughton Tim
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Luff Peter
Taylor, Sir Teddy


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thompson, William


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Townend, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Major, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Tyrie, Andrew


Michie Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Viggers, Peter



Walter, Robert


Moss Malcolm
Walter, Charles


Nicholls, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


O"Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Whittingdale, John


Ottaway, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Paice, James
Wilkinson, John


Paisley, Rev Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Paterson, Owen
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Pollard, Kerry
Yeo, Tim


Powell, Sir Raymond
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Randall, John



Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, Laurence
Mr. Gerald Howarth and


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time; to be read the Third time tomorrow, pursuant to Order (7 February).

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Northern Ireland Act 2000
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Eriskay Causeway) Order Confirmation Act 2000
United Reformed Church Act 2000
Alliance & Leicester pic (Group Reorganisation) Act 2000
Baxi Partnership Limited Trusts Act 2000

Police Funding (Lincolnshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Edward Leigh: I want to examine how the Government are supporting the Lincolnshire police, which is a subject of importance and interest to the people of Lincolnshire. The first duty of any Government is to protect the people and ensure that they enjoy their freedom under the law, safe in their own homes and on the streets. The burden on the Government is to ensure that, within necessarily limited resources, all parts of the country, urban and rural, are given a fair deal on public services, including the police.
The facts speak for themselves: Lincolnshire does not get a fair deal on police funding. That is not party rhetoric. It is based firmly on the facts. Lincolnshire covers about 2,800 square miles, with a population of 620,000. By area it is the fifth largest police force in England. The population is evenly and widely dispersed over 504 parishes. During the summer months there is an influx of tourists heading towards the coast. The population is disproportionately elderly. One in five will over be 65 by 2007. The fear of crime is particularly high among the elderly. In rural areas, burglary—the cruel invasion of one's home that is particularly upsetting to older people— is a real problem.
Sadly, Lincolnshire is in the third quartile nationally for burglary. Rural villages suffer from vandalism and petty theft. Villagers demand a greater police presence which cannot currently be delivered. The standard spending assessment—what the Government think that Lincolnshire should spend on the police—is £62.6 million. If the police authority agreed to spend at that figure, we would have between 150 and 200 fewer police officers and policing in Lincolnshire would be in crisis. The police authority breaks the limit, spending £69.7 million, which is 11.3 per cent, more.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that between March and September 1999 the number of officers in Lincolnshire fell by 29. He will be further aware that between April 1997 and the end of 1999, there was a total fall in numbers of about 40 officers. Does not that suggest that we need the Government to introduce the sparsity factor into the formula, as recommended by their independent consultants?

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend because he has raised that issue on several occasions and made some important points about manpower in the Lincolnshire police force. I will come back to that subject in a moment.
The result of the overspend above SSA is inevitable. It means that Lincolnshire people pay more than people elsewhere, and they get less. That is our central problem. Lincolnshire's council tax at band D is £81, compared with the standard council tax of £50. We are top of the league in levels of council tax, but pay in our area is often low compared with national rates.
For all that the council tax is high, we still suffer from poor levels of policing. The population is served by just one police officer for every 535 people, which is one of the

poorest ratios in the country. There are just 1.97 officers per hectare, compared to a national average of 8.25. In plain speak, Lincolnshire police are overstretched and undermanned. They have to chase their tails over a huge area.

Gillian Merron: I wish to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a couple of brief points. First, Lincolnshire has seen—I am delighted to say—the biggest decrease in crime in the east midlands. Secondly, the chief constable, Richard Childs, said only last month that one of the best ways to explain that reduction is the hard work put into multi-agency efforts to tackle crime and the causes of crime. Does not Lincolnshire's record show that the Government have set a winning formula with Lincolnshire's police?

Mr. Leigh: I am glad that the hon. Lady mentions the chief constable. I am also delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who takes a keen interest in these matters, is now in his place.
The chief constable has made it clear that he supports our campaign to increase the funding formula because he thinks that it is unfair. We hope that the hon. Lady will join that campaign. Of course I welcome a fall in recorded crime, but it is still too high. When I talked to the mayor of Gainsborough last week, his view was that in certain areas it is so difficult to get a quick police response that people often do not report crime, and that is something that greatly concerns him.
In 1998–99, Lincolnshire received the lowest police grant per head of population. That is worrying. The Minister may argue when he replies that the Home Secretary's crime fighting bids are the answer to our problems, and of course we welcome 41 extra police officers. However, the real issue is that the formula used by the Government in working out the grant is simply unfair. It does not take adequate account of the sparsity factor and the rural nature of our county.
In any event, the 1,000 extra police officers that were announced do not make up for the 1,700 officers lost nationally since the general election. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made clear earlier, we have also lost police officers in Lincolnshire. The Government's announcement yesterday will not solve the problem. The chief constable, my hon. Friends and the police authority agree with me, but more importantly that is also the view of the report that the Government commissioned into the problem. The ORH report provides conclusive evidence of the additional costs placed on Lincolnshire and recommends an adjustment to the formula. If that was implemented, Lincolnshire's SSA would immediately rise by £2.2 million.
Successive Labour Ministers have promised that they would respond to the findings of their research. First, it was the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—now the ex-First Minister in Wales— when he was the Minister responsible. Then the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), when he was the Minister responsible, promised that the Government would implement the report. He said that the recognition of the significance of sparsity as an effective needs formula drew support from both sides of the House. We want to know that the Minister now accepts the conclusion of the Government's report.
It gets worse. The research was delayed by the Government in 1997 owing to an alleged lack of funds, despite an offer from the rural authorities to fund the report. Ministers now say that they cannot implement the report because they have conveniently imposed a moratorium, or freeze, on changing the funding formula for the police. However, this unilateral freeze was imposed after the research commenced, and the results were originally promised for the current year's settlement for 1999–2000. As such, they would not have been affected by the moratorium. There is no case for not implementing this report, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government will do so. If we do not implement the report, matters will get worse.
I have talked so far about figures. Let me give a few examples of what is happening locally. The call centre in Lincoln is not working adequately—I visited it. Police constables are having to be taken away from other duties to man it. Despite reassurances about the police station in Gainsborough, people are not convinced. It is supposed to stay open until 9 o'clock, but often it is not. I visited a company which had a problem. The director of Impaq Ltd tells me:
On my way home, I called the main Gainsborough Police station just to let them know that there was a gang of youths loitering on private property. Unfortunately the place was closed at 7.55pm!
There has also been a problem with vandalism in the churchyard. Very worryingly, there is a hide, and there has been talk of vigilantes in the town. Nobody condones that sort of behaviour, but when the police presence declines to such an extent and people start talking about vigilantes, that is really worrying. I hope that the Minister will take careful note of what people are saying.
We have written to a number of parish councils. This is a typical comment from Hemswell Cliff parish council:
One parishioner commented that after reporting a burglary in progress at out buildings at their property, it was some 50 minutes before the police arrived, by which time the offenders had fled. The officer apologised for the delay, but stated that they were the only patrol car covering the whole of the Gainsborough area and had been despatched from Lincoln.
That is the constituency of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron). Sometimes, in my constituency, in that enormous area stretching from the boundary close to Grimsby in the north-east right down to Market Rasen, there may be only one police officer on duty, or one car roaming around. It simply is not good enough.
In the 120 square miles covering Keelby, Great Limber, Riby, Caistor, North Kelsey and South Kelsey, Nettleton, Grasby, Searby and Bigby, when the Caistor police constable is off duty, there is just one back-up. Gainsborough town centre has a very good beat officer, but only one, and she also doubles helping with murder inquiries in Lincoln. If there is a murder in the county, she goes—we do not see her again. One could go on giving examples.
In conclusion, the whole county is asking the Government to do the decent thing and recognise the conclusions of their own report. They must recognise that the population of Lincolnshire is evenly spread across that vast county, and that the police simply cannot do the job on the money that they are given. We want action, and we want it today.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on obtaining this debate on police funding in Lincolnshire. In a way, it is his second bite at the cherry. When the debate was scheduled for 25 January in Westminster Hall, he was so preoccupied to ensure that the leader of his party was not vulnerable in Prime Minister's questions that he wanted to knock out the next day's business. He therefore spoke in the debate on the Floor of the House, so we lost the debate on this subject. However, I am glad to have this chance to debate it now.
The House debated and approved the Government's proposals for police funding for 2000–01 on Thursday 3 February. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) raised important issues affecting police funding for Lincolnshire police during that debate, and I appreciate the way in which he raised them.
Police funding and rural crime concerns have been raised by hon. Members in the Chamber in previous Adjournment debates, most recently by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) on 2 December and in other debates on crime. It is a genuine issue, and I acknowledge the seriousness with which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) takes it.
I should put on the record Lincolnshire's current funding position. For 2000–01, funding will be £65.4 million—an increase of 3.3 per cent, over the previous year, and higher than the national average of 2.8 per cent. In 1999–2000, the force's funding increased by 4.4 per cent., which again compares well with the national average of 2.5 per cent. There have been two years of above-average increases in Government funding for Lincolnshire. That is a good result for Lincolnshire police and the people of Lincolnshire, and it is more than many other forces received. I, like the hon. Gentleman, pay tribute to the chief constable for advancing his case, but I pay tribute too to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who has pressed that case hard in both public and private representations.
Government funding is not the whole picture. It is for the police authority to decide on its final budget, along with any corresponding increase in council tax, but there is scope for the police authority to increase spending power next year by asking council tax payers to contribute more, and we are all familiar with the political judgments and trade-offs that exist in that regard.
The police increase of precept on council tax last year was 3.9 per cent.—the second lowest in England and Wales at a time when many forces took decisions that went the other way. When, at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, I discussed education with the leader of Lincolnshire county council last year, we discussed the matter at some length. Issues remain to be discussed openly, involving, as the hon. Gentleman fairly said, Government funding, but also involving decisions taken by the police authority about the appropriate precepting regime.
In 1999–2000, Lincolnshire will spend an estimated £111 per head of population compared with an average for the shire counties of £114.50 per head of population. That figure is slightly lower than the national average, but I would argue that it is not significantly so. As the


hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the Government have taken measures to ensure that the whole community, along with the police and local authorities, can address the issues of crime within the context of partnership. In Lincolnshire, as in many other parts of the country, partnerships can mobilise the resources of the community at every level in order to prevent and reduce crime and the impact of offending.
Many rural communities throughout the country have welcomed the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which institutionalised effective partnerships on the ground and ensured that people could work together effectively. Many partnerships in Lincolnshire seek to develop in a variety of ways and the Government; wjsh to do all we can to help.
The effect of all that on crime in Lincolnshire was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln in her intervention. In general, there has been good news for Lincolnshire. In the 12 months to 1999—according to the most recent published figures—crime fell by 2.3 per cent, bucking the national increase of 2.2 per cent. That is a tribute to the police and the local communities and partnerships that have worked hard to reduce crime. The percentage change translates into an average of 7,496 crimes per 100,000 population in Lincolnshire, which is significantly below the national average of 9,984.
I do not want to suggest any sense of complacency. We continue actively to discuss the targeting regime and appropriate procedures to drive down crime further. However, as the hon. Gentleman raised the debate, it is a good time to pay tribute to everyone in Lincolnshire who has played a part in ensuring that it is relatively free of crime in comparison with other parts of the country and is continuing to drive crime down.

Mr. Quentin Davies: The Minister is an able and competent man who takes his duties seriously. I am sure that he will not wish to use the limited time available to us as a result of the admirable initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) without addressing the central point of the debate. That is that police funding in England is based on the standard spending assessment system, under which Lincolnshire is structurally underfunded because there is no recognition of the county's sparsity. We have the greatest sparsity of any county in England, and the distribution of population is unusually evenly spread. That means much higher costs for delivering any given level of police service, yet as the Minister has acknowledged, we have the lowest funding—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

Mr. Clarke: As always, I am grateful for the intervention of the hon. Gentleman. When we served on the Select Committee on the Treasury, I was well aware of his ability to make powerful and effective points at some length—as he has just done.
The next point in my speaking notes is headed "Sparsity". I do not think that the hon. Member for Gainsborough attended the debate on the police grant— unlike his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham—so he may not be aware that I dealt with sparsity at some length on that occasion, as I intend to do in this debate.
I understand the disappointment that we did not implement the recommendations of the research report on the cost of policing of rural areas. Recently, I met a delegation of representatives from the rural authorities, led by Lincolnshire, and which included my Norfolk authority. The authority that polices my constituency is one of those affected by the sparsity formula. I discussed the matter in great detail, and I pay tribute to the role of the chairman of the Lincolnshire police authority in co-ordinating that group.
Last Thursday, in the debate on the police grant, I mentioned the role of the chairman. He wrote to me asking what I was referring to. I told him that I was concerned about the way in which the Lincolnshire police authority had raised the issue of sparsity in a press release. That press release was intended to be on behalf of the rural authorities affected by sparsity, but several representatives from such authorities—notably from Northamptonshire—said that it did not speak for them.
My advice to everyone prosecuting the sparsity debate is to do so according to the genuine merit of their case. I emphasise that point. The debate should not involve party political point scoring. Some police authorities are in strong Labour areas—others are in strong Conservative areas. Members of Parliament from all parts of the country advance arguments in what is a legitimate and fair debate, but it is not right to make it a party political one, as I tried to point out.
During the summer, the findings of the research report on policing rural areas were considered by a Home Office-led group, including representatives of the police service, police authorities and local authorities. Various views were expressed and there was general agreement that a sparsity factor had been detected—as the hon. Member for Gainsborough correctly pointed out during his speech.
The Government understand that rural police authorities, such as Lincolnshire, will want those research findings to be implemented. However, we set considerable store by stability in the grant system to help police authorities to plan ahead—for the reason given by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) in his intervention. We need to ensure that the whole SSA system is right.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is conducting a review of the system because it is unfair in several respects, including the sparsity aspect. In the light of that, there is a moratorium, so my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary decided that it would be inappropriate to make substantive changes to the method of police grant distribution for 2000–01. However, I can give the House a commitment—as I did last Thursday—that we are actively considering making that change in future years. Many members of the Government strongly support that approach.
We have also responded to the problem in other announcements on the subject. For example, in the crime-fighting fund, which was announced yesterday, there was a specific reference to sparsity. The allocation of 4,000 of the 5,000 officers was based on the general distribution plus a sparsity factor of 2 per cent.—the first time that that has been done—acknowledging the force of the argument made by the "sparsity alliance".

Gillian Merron: My hon. Friend is aware that I think that the report on sparsity should be put into action. I have


pressed him on that matter, and I am pleased that he has said that change will be actively sought. I hope that it will come soon. I welcome the boost to police recruitment. The Government have awarded Lincolnshire about 80 per cent, of the police authority's bid. The authority was one of the most successful in its bid to the new crime fighting fund. Congratulations are due to Lincolnshire police on the quality of their application and to the Government on their award of the funds.

Mr. Clarke: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising that point, which is entirely correct. If I may reinforce it, may I just place on the record the remarks of the chief constable, who has been mentioned, on the fund? Mr. Richard Childs—a very fine chief constable—said in his press release:
We were realistic in our bid for a portion of the Crime Fighting Fund and have been given an additional 41 officers over the next three years … We bid for a further 50 … and based that … number on specific crime and disorder initiatives focused particularly on rural communities where there is a real gap between actual crime and the fear of crime … Lincolnshire has been allocated resources to recruit"—
the 41 officers over the next three years. It continued:
From April we will be able to start redressing the perceived absence of officers across the whole County … They are not of course the only officers we will be recruiting as we anticipate replacing those that resign and retire as well as catching up on a few we were unable to recruit this year … With our increased investment in information technology to support the front line officers, I am confident we will meet the continuation criteria imposed by the Home Office to ensure we can recruit our full allocation".
In his covering letter to me when he sent me a copy of the press release, the chief constable said that he wanted me to emphasise that his positive approach to the allocation to Lincolnshire complements the allocation with the
intention to invest heavily in IT and … touches upon our ability to recruit as many as leave next year. This is possible only as a direct result of the very significant reorganisation we have gone through and the effective problem solving focus we have adopted within the Force".
That is a powerful testimony from the chief constable, which I am glad to read into the record.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has expressed warm words about the need to introduce to the formula an element to reflect sparsity. Can he give the House an

undertaking that, at the end of the moratorium period, he will introduce to the formula the sparsity factor recommended by his Home Office consultants?

Mr. Clarke: No, I cannot give that undertaking. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a very experienced— I hate to use the word "statesman"—political leader in his own right. He knows that undertakings cannot be given by Ministers when major reviews of funding systems are taking place. The purpose of the review of funding systems is to weigh up the issues and form a view, including in this case on sparsity.
I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an undertaking that the issue of sparsity will be very seriously considered—in fact, is being very seriously considered—throughout that process. I can give him an undertaking that the Government intend to focus even more sharply on rural crime as a very important element of our initiatives to build a safe community countrywide. However, I cannot give him an undertaking about the outcome of that review process. No Minister could, and under the Conservatives, no Minister could either, simply because a process is taking place which will give rise to conclusions.
However, I do want to say that, in addition to the sparsity element in the crime fighting fund announcements that we made yesterday, in the CCTV announcements we gave priority to rural funding issues and our new guidelines will reinforce that still further; and we are actively considering, in the context of the Government's priority on rural issues as a whole, the ways in which we can fight rural crime both with resources and with a range of other and different initiatives. I really do believe that the Government are seeking to address these issues very seriously and to ensure that we can address the issues in the fullest possible way.
On rural crime, a wide range of other issues are of concern. We are pursuing a range of inter-related initiatives to reduce crime and the fear of crime. We are delivering new powers to the local crime reduction partnerships and we are providing a significant amount of money through the crime reduction scheme and for CCTV schemes to focus on those most at risk.
We strongly believe that we must address the issues of confidence in rural communities, such as those represented by the hon. Member for Gainsborough. I genuinely commend him on securing the debate. I genuinely believe that the issues of rural crime are important, and he is right to raise them in the way that he has, not only for his constituents but for the wider good. I also genuinely believe that the Government are seriously trying to address these issues in a sharp and focused way.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.